Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KING'S LYNN CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

DEE AND CLWYD RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Read the Third time and passed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords]

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

RHONDDA CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

NORTH WALES HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Mineworkers (Benefits)

Mr. Harper: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the National Union of Mineworkers about the present level of disregards, as they affect their retired pensioners who are in receipt of supplementary benefits, following the recent increase in the mineworkers' pension.

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the National Union of Mineworkers regarding the loss of supplementary benefit by unemployed coalminers as a result of their recent increase in mineworkers' pension; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): None directly, but this matter was referred to in a letter the union sent to the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission on 30th May. I understand that the increases in mineworkers' pensions, together with the recent increases in the needs allowance in the rent rebate and allowance scheme, will mean that many of the miners concerned will be better off financially by ceasing to receive supplementary benefit and paying rebated housing costs instead.

Mr. Harper: I fail to see that, because hundreds of miners living on retirement pensions, after the recent increase of £1·50 in their basic pension—making it £3—have lost all or part of their supplementary benefit. Therefore, they are, in effect, worse off.
Will the Under-Secretary give serious consideration—we have asked for this many times before—to increasing the disregard from the present £l? Surely he must agree that it is scandalous to submit men who have worked for 51 or 52 years in the pits to this kind of treatment.

Mr. Dean: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about a scandalous situation. It existed in 1969, when mineworkers' pensions were last increased, but


on this occasion the miners will benefit from the increase in both the basic and the supplementary pension. In many cases they will also benefit from the new rent rebate arrangements. The main thing is to ensure that the miners know of this. Discussions are going on at the moment between the Supplementary Benefits Commission, the NUM, and the NCB with the intention of ensuring that all miners know of the best arrangement from their own points of view.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Is it not the case that the disregards on supplementary benefit have not been increased for some years, during which the value of money has declined considerably? If it is the policy of the Government to make adjustments to benefits to cope with inflation, ought not adjustments also to be made in the amount that can be taken by a person from other sources? If no adjustments are to be made, will not this situation undermine the incentive of employers to make adjustments in pensions and of individuals to save?

Mr. Dean: I accept my hon. Friend's point. My right hon. Friend has on a number of occasions said that there is a case for improving the disregards, which have not been changed since 1966. This, as in other matters, is a question of priorities. My right hon. Friend has thought it appropriate up to now to concentrate the resources available on improving the basic rates of benefit which help everybody, and in particular those who have no other resources to call upon.

Mr. O'Malley: Why does not the hon. Gentleman find out what he is talking about before making the statement that miners are benefiting from the present increase in pensions? Thousands of miners and miners' widows are getting not a penny benefit as a result of the increase negotiated between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is bitterly resented by mining communities throughout the country? Bearing in mind that on the Report stage of the National Insurance Bill on Friday the Opposition propose to move an amendment that would benefit these miners and their families along the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont), will the Minister at this stage

reconsider his attitude and give miners and their families some benefit from the increase in these pensions?

Mr. Dean: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism. The last time that the miners' pension was increased was in 1969, when the Labour Government were in office. On that occasion pensions and supplementary benefit were not increased at the same time, and the present rent rebate and allowance arrangement was not operating at that time.
The National Union of Mineworkers, which is being extremely helpful and co-operative in this matter, is not adopting the attitude that the hon. Gentleman is adopting. The NUM is saying to us—and we are taking the point—that what matters is that miners should benefit as a result of these improvements. We are all now actively working to ensure that that happens.

Geriatrics (Wessex)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many elderly people are waiting for entry to geriatric beds in the Wessex Regional Hospital Board area.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): 343 at 30th April 1973.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that almost every regional hospital board has a long waiting list not only for geriatric beds but for cold surgery, dental treatment for handicapped people and a host of other things? Why do not the Government divert just some of the money that they propose to waste on Maplin towards improving National Health Service facilities?

Mr. Alison: We have made very sharp increases in the capital allocations to regional hospital boards to improve the service in this, above all, of the very many capital needs in the hospital service.

Mr. S. James A. Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Southampton area the building strike of last year had a very serious effect on the provision of hospital beds and that in some way that may have been a cause of this problem?

Mr. Alison: I am glad to say that the waiting list for the area covered by


the Southampton Hospital Management Committee has, in this category, fallen in recent months.

Private Patients (Operating Theatre Facilities)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the list of hospitals in each of the regions in England where from April 1970 until April 1972 no charges were collected from private non-resident patients for the use of operating theatre facilities, the number of instances when theatre facilities were used for private patients, and his estimate of the loss to the National Health Service which has resulted from the loss of such fees.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): No, Sir. Information about the use of operating theatre facilities by private non-resident patients is not recorded centrally and could not be obtained without extensive inquiries of hospital authorities. I am, however, aware that such cases have occurred and in accordance with the recommendations of the Expenditure Committee I am arranging for a review of the relevant control procedures.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Secretary of State arrange to have the auditors' reports on hospitals centrally examined? Of the cases that he has mentioned, in the Salisbury Hospital, for example, there were 140 uses of the theatre and 360 consultations in two years, of which only 25 were charged for? Is not it now time that each hospital had a standardised method of recording so that auditors can get at such figures?

Sir K. Joseph: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The March 1972 audit revealed a dozen cases of hospital authorities where patients had been or appeared to have been treated as private, non-resident patients, not necessarily using the operating theatre, without adequate records of the facilities provided or without having paid the appropriate charges. I am considering the position.

Mr. Molloy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a possibility of increased abuse in this matter? When he makes an investigation, will he

be good enough to examine the situation of National Health Service doctors and nurses who, if charges of abuse occur in this matter, might be implicated in something of which they are innocent?

Sir K. Joseph: I doubt whether there is a case for using the word "abuse". There may be neglect of necessary procedures, and that could be partly my fault for not seeing that the procedures are easily carried out. That is why I am making an inquiry.

Disabled Persons (Aid)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the proposals for further relief for the disabled that he has currently under examination.

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot at this stage usefully add to my answer to my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) and The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) on 8th May.—[Vol. 856, c. 178–80.]

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the decision of the other place on the Social Security Bill on similar lines to an amendment that I moved in this House? Does he accept the necessity for the Government to produce a concrete plan for the relief of the disabled? Will he commit himself to publishing a Green Paper on this subject at the earliest possible date?

Sir K. Joseph: No. As I have explained to my hon. Friend, the commitment to publish a Green Paper might delay getting on with action for priority groups of the disabled, for which we are all impatient and on which the Government are now carrying out urgent studies.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give a definite date for the publication of Baroness Sharp's report on vehicle services for physically disabled people? Will he ensure that the report is made available to the House before any definitive decisions are reached by the Government?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has tabled Question No. 11 on that very subject.

Children in Care

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will ascertain and publish the number of children in care of local authorities who have been in care of foster parents for five years or more.

Sir K. Joseph: I regret that this information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only by a special inquiry.

Miss Lestor: Will the Minister let the House know of his feelings and what his recommendations will be regarding the suggestion in the Houghton Report on fostering and adoption about the availability of children in that category for adoption by their foster parents? Will he also assure the House that, in view of that suggestion and many other far-reaching suggestions in the Houghton Report, a White Paper will be issued on this matter to allow full and free debate before any Bill is introduced?

Sir K. Joseph: I am in the midst of studying the Houghton Report and the comments on it, which are coming in from bodies concerned with the subject. The lack of central statistics does not mean that we need persuading that the particular subject is of great importance.
On the other parts of the hon. Lady's question, I shall consider what she has said and write to her.

Supplementary Benefit Recipients

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of people now on social security, at the latest date, compared to June 1970.

Mr. Dean: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to supplementary benefit. The number of people receiving regular payments of supplementary benefit on 15th May 1973 was about 2,819,000 compared with 2,689,000 in May 1970.

Mr. Ashton: Is not that an admission that 140,000 more people are on supplementary benefit? How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the Prime Minister's speech yesterday about a booming Britain with the figures that he has just announced? Is it not booming

poverty that we have been seeing over the last three years, with more people on social security?

Mr. Dean: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The percentage of people in receipt of benefit is much the same as it was in June 1970. The numbers have risen partly because we unproved the benefits in real terms but also because the number of people likely to be eligible for benefit, particularly pensioners, has also risen during that period.

Mr. Boscawen: Is not it true that as the level of pensions is increased so the level of supplementary benefits is increased, and so the number of people on supplementary benefit will be increased? Is that not to the credit of the present Government?

Mr. Dean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What the Labour Party must answer is the question whether it wishes to see the real value of the benefits for those who are most vulnerable in our community, and those most in need, being increased. If it wishes to see them increased, the number of people becoming eligible for these benefits will also tend to increase.

Mr. O'Malley: Does the Under-Secretary agree that what is highly unsatisfactory about the figures is that nearly 2 million people of the total number of people on supplementary benefit are retirement pensioners or people over retirement age? Is not the tragedy and condemnation of the Government the fact that they have introduced legislation which will mean that not only the present generation of pensioners but also retirement pensioners far into the future, even into the next century, will continue to be dependent on means-tested supplementary benefit in order to be able to live at all?

Mr. Dean: On the contrary, the present Government are the first Government to introduce a tax credit scheme which fill provide more help than anything that any Government have done since the war by reducing substantially the number of pensioners dependent on supplementary benefit.

Mrs. Knight: Will my hon. Friend consider the advisability of suggesting to officials in social security offices that it might be a good thing if they drew


people's attention to the fact that, in some cases, although they might wish to come off social security and take a job, they would be better off continuing to receive social security and, therefore, that the officials should advise them not to take a job?

Mr. Dean: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. There is a difficult area on the margin here, particularly where a large number of young dependent children is involved.

Pensions

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of of State for Social Services what have been the annual percentage increases or decreases in retirement pensions for a married couple, adjusted in the retail price index, in the autumn of each of the last eight years; and what have been the average annual increases on the same basis, between October 1964 and June 1970, and between June 1970 and October 1972.

Mr. Dean: The average annual increases, adjusted for changes in the general index of retail prices, in the value of the retirement pension for a married couple for the periods October 1964 to June 1970 and June 1970 to October 1972 were respectively 2·4 per cent. and 5 per cent. I shall, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the annual increase or decrease for each of the eight years.

Mr. Dixon: Can my hon. Friend give me any reason why any old-age pensioner should ever again vote for a Labour Government?

Mr. Dean: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The figures speak clearly for themselves and there is little doubt that the pensioners are more interested in effective action by this Government than in extravagant promises from the Labour Party.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Everyone in the country, including the Minister, knows that old-age pensioners spend the overwhelming bulk of their income on food—if they can afford it. As food has doubled and trebled in price, and is continuing to rise, will the Minister say exactly what is happening and give the figures in the reply which he is to publish, showing how much food has increased

since the Government have been in office?

Mr. Dean: I take the hon. Member's point. Food is one of the most important items in the budget of any pensioner. I can assure him, however, that the increase in food prices, or in other prices, is fully taken into account when the level of the pension increases is determined. Since the Government came to office pensions have increased by 35 per cent. and prices have gone up by just over 26 per cent. In other words, there is a substantial margin of real improvement.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Not all National Insurance pensioners living in private rented accommodation are applying for the sometimes very generous benefits that are available to them under the Housing Finance Act. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary consider some administrative measure which will encourage these pensioners to apply for their benefits?

Mr. Dean: All this came out clearly in the earlier Question on miners' pensions. We shall do all we can to build up close links between our Department and the housing departments of the local authorities.

Mr. Loughlin: We all appreciate that statistics are most interesting, but will the Minister do the House a favour? Will he go along to a shopping centre at the weekend and take specific note of old-age pensioners scratching around to get sufficient food to last them over the weekend, knowing full well that they will not have sufficient to eat by the end of the following week?

Mr. Dean: Of course we are all concerned to do more for pensioners than we have been able to do in the past. Comments of the kind uttered by the hon. Member, however, come very ill from him, because he had responsibility for these matters long before this Government introduced an annual increase in pensions.

Mr. John Silkin: Does not the Under-Secretary agree that the retirement pension today represents a larger proportion of average national earnings than it did in 1967 and that it is likely that by October this year it will have reached an all-time low?

Mr. Dean: The proportion has not altered significantly over recent years, but the proportion of pensioners in the population has continued to increase. We should take much more notice of what the right hon. Gentleman said were we to have more support from him for our counter-inflation policies.

Following is the information:


Year (October)
Percentage change in real value of retirement pension for a married couple*


1964 to 1965
+13·8


1965 to 1966
-3·7


1966 to 1967
+10·2


1967 to 1968
-5·3


1968 to 1969†
+5·3


1969†to1970
-6·6


1970 to 1971
+9·5


1971 to 1972
+4·2


*Retirement pensions were uprated in March 1965, October 1967, November 1969, September 1971 and October 1972.


† The month used in this is November 1969.

Attendance Allowance

Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many and what proportion of applications for full attendance allowances in respect of children have been refused during the last 12-month period for which records are available.

Mr. Dean: It is estimated that in the 12-month period to May 1973, 2,300 applications for attendance allowance in respect of children were rejected representing approximately 30 per cent. of the claims made for children.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that this is a sad figure and that there are far too many rejections in cases of real need? Hon. Members on all sides have signed in great numbers a motion in my name deploring the procedures of the Attendance Allowance Board. What does the Minister propose to do about it?

Mr. Dean: I regret the criticisms that the hon. and learned Gentleman continues to make about the board. It has done a first-class job in a short time. Over 70 per cent. of the applications for children have been successful. More than 24,000 awards have been made and the new lower rate allowance for children will come into operation on 1st October this year and will bring in another group of children.

Mr. Waddington: I do not doubt that the attendance allowance board is doing its best in difficult circumstances, but does my hon. Friend recognise that many of us on both sides of the House feel that certain cases prove that the board is interpreting the rules very strictly?

Mr. Dean: There are difficult cases on the borderline, and I accept what my hon. and learned Friend said. It is for that reason that we are now pressing as fast as we can to bring the allowance to additional groups. The allowance, which started towards the end of 1971, is already bringing new help to more than 90,000 hard-pressed families who hitherto were getting no allowance.

Mr. Concannon: Will the Minister consider the case of children who are living with foster parents and who, if they were living with their normal parents, would qualify for the attendance allowance? Will he write to the local authorities about cases such as this and suggest that they make an additional payment to foster parents in such cases?

Mr. Dean: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. I shall consider any individual case that he has in mind. In many cases where fostering is arranged through local authorities it is more advantageous to the parents to have a foster allowance from the local authority than it is to have an allowance in this form. I shall be glad to consider individual cases.

Sir R. Cary: I am extremely grateful to the Attendance Allowance Board for the help it has given in many cases in my constituency, but may I ask the board, through my hon. Friend, if it will be so good as to look a little more generously at the claims made for children?

Mr. Dean: It seems a little unfair to blame the board. The conditions in which it operates were laid down by Parliament, and the Government take responsibility for that. The early stage of the allowance was made fairly stringent because we felt that this was the only way we could get the allowance most speedily to those who were most in need.

Kidney Transplants

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he


is taking to increase the supply of kidneys available for transplant.

Sir K. Joseph: This is fundamentally a question of education and attitudes. It was for this reason that in November we started the kidney donor scheme.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the kidney donor cards introduced by his Department have no legal validity unless they are signed not only by the potential donor but by the next of kin? Will the Secretary of State seek to amend the cards so that in an emergency valuable time is not spent by hospitals searching for the next of kin?

Sir K. Joseph: Quite apart from what the legal position is or may be, I believe it is appropriate to consult the next of kin before kidneys are removed for transplantation.

Mr. Simeons: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the early-day motion which ran for nearly a year in the last Session, in which it was proposed that the wishes of the potential kidney donor should be made known through some form of identity disc which could be worn? Once those wishes had been made known, that would give the matter legal authority and it would then be most unlikely that relatives would wish to countermand the donor's wishes.

Sir K. Joseph: It still remains sensible and humane, whatever the wishes expressed by the next of kin, for the doctor concerned to consult the next of kin before the transplantation takes place. It is, however, vitally important that the next of kin should have been consulted by the potential donor so that the next of kin will be ready for the question and ready to answer it.

Invalid Vehicles (Sharp Report)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is causing the delay in the report of Baroness Sharp on vehicles for the disabled.

Mr. Alison: Lady Sharp is pressing on with her inquiry as quickly as possible and hopes to complete it within the next few months.

Mr. Marten: As the report was originally hoped for in February, may

we hope that the delay will lead to fundamental rethinking about the provision of vehicles for the disabled? Will the report be published? If it is, will there then be time for interested people to express their views before the Government make up their mind on what they will do?

Mr. Alison: No doubt we shall engage in consultations when the report is to hand. The extra length of time taken by Lady Sharp is commensurate with the effort and attention to detail that she is putting into it. I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish her to take as much time as is necessary for a comprehensive report.

Mr. Ashley: I am a very warm supporter of the campaign being run by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) for disabled drivers, but will the Minister heed the warning that there is a serious danger that people even more seriously disabled than disabled drivers, people so disabled that they cannot drive, will be overlooked by the Government? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that those who have to pay to be driven around will be given the same consideration by the Government as those who deserve and need four-wheeled cars?

Mr. Alison: This is the perennial dilemma in the invalid vehicle service, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Lady Sharp is considering the question of priorities against the background of that problem.

Mr. Cordle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the vehicles are dangerous? They are very difficult to manoeuvre, and susceptible to the wind. They are not the sort of vehicle that invalids should drive. Is it not possible to provide a vehicle that would enable the rest of the family to enjoy time spent with the driver?

Mr. Alison: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's allegation that the vehicle is dangerous or unstable. Even to suggest that it is is to do a grave disservice to the 18,000 invalid vehicle users who are happily and regularly using the vehicles. The proof of the vehicles is the readiness of the insurers to offer rates fully competitive with those for other kinds of vehicles.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that the main point of my earlier


question was to ensure that his right hon. Friend will lay the Lady Sharp report before the House before the Government reach any conclusions on its recommendations? His reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) will be regarded as one of deep complacency, and one that many of us hope that Lady Sharp, at least, will ignore.

Mr. Alison: We must wait and see what Lady Sharp says. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that her report will be published and that every hon. Member will have an opportunity to study and consider it and ask questions about it before any decisions about implementation are taken.

Student Teachers (Benefits)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make provision to ensure that students for the teaching profession who previously paid National Insurance contributions shall have their entitlement to benefits protected until such time as they resume normal employment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dean: There are already arrangements under which mature students can pay National Insurance contributions voluntarily to protect their benefit entitlement. It would not be right to single out student teachers for a special concession.

Mr. Dempsey: But they cannot afford it. Does not the Minister agree that a National Insurance contributor whose employment is interrupted by unemployment or sickness should have his insurance card franked or credited and have not only his benefits but those of his wife and family protected? Why cannot there be a similar arrangement to mark the cards of those whose employment is interrupted because they elect to engage in a full-time course of educational study to assist this country to overcome the teaching shortage?

Mr. Dean: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I think I know the case to which he is referring. I hope that he will agree that a scheme dealing with many millions of people must try to ensure that one group does not subsidise another. The fact is that students

rightly receive preferential arrangements within the National Insurance Scheme already.

Cigarette Smoking

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he proposes to take further to strengthen his campaign against cigarette smoking, with special reference to the damaging effects on health.

Sir K. Joseph: I expect to publish about the end of the year a revised list of the tar and nicotine yields of brands of cigarettes on sale in the United Kingdom. Arrangements have been made with the industry for hints on less dangerous ways of smoking to be placed on cigarette packet inserts. The money made available by the Government to the Health Education Council for smoking and health during the current financial year is likely to exceed the £380,000 made available last year. The Hunter Committee will shortly begin work on the scientific aspects of smoking and health including consideration of research into less dangerous smoking and of testing systems for the health effects of tobacco and tobacco substitutes.

Sir G. Nabarro: Cannot my right hon. Friend be required to read that answer at a reasonable pace, so that the questioner and others can absorb the nature of the reply, Mr. Speaker? May we have it read again?

Sir K. Joseph: I apologise to my hon. Friend and the House, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend's Question required a long answer, and I did my best to shorten it. I thought it right to read it at a fast pace because there are many facts about Government activity to explain to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Edelman.

Sir G. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman).

Mr. Edelman: Will the Secretary of State give his view of those cigarette manufacturers who cash in on the public interest in athletics for the purpose of promoting tournaments where, while professing to encourage good health,


they are advertising the means to speedy disease?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that that is unfair to the manufacturers. I have drawn to their attention the need to avoid advertising brands of cigarettes whilst sponsoring sporting activities. Although they are co-operating fully, if the hon. Gentleman has an example to the contrary perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Speaker: I will give the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) the chance to ask a short and quick supplementary question.

Sir G. Nabarro: I will ask my normal supplementary question, which is both short and quick, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend read the Question? Is it not a fact that statistical evidence now provided shows that in 1972 cigarette smoking increased by 6½ per cent., and that therefore the position is worse among cigarette smokers than it was when he introduced his preventive measures two years ago?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. Yes, Sir. We must therefore now put a lot of hope in the voluntary movement of the smoking public towards less dangerous cigarettes and the possible prospects of smoking-substitutes.

Old and Disabled Persons (Contact Schemes)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will encourage local social services departments to promote good neighbour contact schemes, with the aid of volunteer workers to guard the welfare of the old and disabled.

Sir K. Joseph: I have done so on a number of occasions, and I am sending to the hon. Member copies of three circulars issued to local authorities which are particularly relevant.

Mr. Duffy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been some lonely and even undiscovered—and, therefore, extremely distressing—deaths in Sheffield, which have not involved only the old? Therefore, will he go further than he has gone and reinforce the attempts of those in Sheffield and elsewhere whose aim is to establish one good

neighbour in every street or part of a street to keep an eye on the welfare of the old, backed up by the professional bodies and all linked up with the social services departments?

Sir K. Joseph: I certainly wish to encourage to the full all such admirable activities. I know that there are a number in Sheffield. But quite a number of the people whose deaths we deplore when they are discovered some weeks later have had offers of help which they have refused—not all, but many of them.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a wealth of talent and workers to be tapped among students, particularly in universities and colleges in inner city areas? Will he see that his Department makes a personal approach to see whether they will help to look after the old and disabled who live very near to them?

Sir K. Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall take an opportunity to pass on that advice. which I am sure is familiar to the directors of social services.

Crippling Diseases (Report)

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider as a basis for action the report commissioned from the Economist Intelligence Unit by the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases, entitled "Care with Dignity", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 24th May.—[Vol. 857, c. 122–3.]

Mr. Carter-Jones: The best is the enemy of the good. What is required for the disabled and the aged is the best. At present we are not supplying it. The public should be convinced by education and publicity of the need to spend a great deal more money to provide people with good domiciliary services, with adequate home helps, adequate supplies of food, adequate money and plenty of technical back-up. Will the right hon. Gentleman please give priority to this matter?

Sir K. Joseph: The neglect of generations has left us short of services to support the disabled and their families in their homes and services to look after people who cannot go on living in their homes. It is not a question of "either/ or". We want plenty more of each.

Mr. Astor: I recognise what my right hon. Friend has done for the benefit of disabled people, but I emphasise the evidence produced in the report which shows that it is more economical and satisfactory for disabled people to live at home with their families than in institutions.

Sir K. Joseph: We are short of services for those who live at home and of homes for those who cannot live at home, and we need more of both.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Gentleman referred to an earlier reply to me. Is he aware that I found that reply unconstructive and deeply disappointing? Will he at least agree to meet representatives of the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases to discuss the recommendations of the report?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman used the words "at least". I seldom, if ever, refuse an opportunity to meet those who are interested in the subjects for which I have responsibility. Of course I will meet the representatives if they ask me to do so, but they have not asked.

Dr. Stuttaford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are not doing enough research into crippling diseases and that far too many children are being born disabled who might have had a normal life were the maternity services of the National Health Service brought up to the standards which operate in the private service?

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's contrast between the public and private service. Advances are beginning to be made which may increase the potential for prevention, but they are not such possibilities that can be used wholesale at this stage.

Metropolitan Borough Councils (Chairmen)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what

plans he has to meet the chairmen of the social services committees of the newly elected metropolitan borough councils.

Sir K. Joseph: None at present, Sir.

Mr. Cox: In the newly formed metropolitan borough councils there has been a joining together of authorities with good records for providing services for disabled people and authorities with poor records. Will not the right hon. Gentleman seek to impress upon the chairmen of the social services committees of the new authorities the importance of spending as much money as possible to improve services for the disabled in their areas?

Sir K. Joseph: I shall be addressing the joint social service conference of the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations next October, when I shall be speaking on this subject.

Speech Therapists (Birmingham)

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of speech therapists, including part-timers expressed as a decimal, employed in the City of Birmingham; how this figure compares with that for two years before; and what plans there are for any increase.

Mr. Alison: By hospital authorities 8·1 and by the education authority 4·8; and I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that three more are due to take up their appointments shortly. Figures for 1971 were 8·1 and 9·4 for the hospital and education services respectively. Recruitment in particular localities is a matter for the individual authorities. The general need for more speech therapists is one of the recommendations in the Quirk Report currently under consideration.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I appreciate that there are competing demands on the social and educational services, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that one important problem in the so-called socially deprived areas is getting at what specialists call the under-functioning children? Is not there a prior claim for this sort of expense on the social services?

Mr. Alison: We readily admit that the figures of shortfall indicated by the Quirk Report represent a considerable need, and we certainly support the efforts that are being made to increase the numbers coming through from the schools. We hope to see a substantial improvement within the Quirk 20-year period.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that the future of many thousands of people depends upon the availability of speech therapists? Is he aware of the great shortage of speech therapists throughout the country? Will he say something about the future of people who are suffering from loss of speech due to brain injury, of whom there are a great many?

Mr. Alison: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said to my hon. Friend. We readily admit that, as the Quirk Report shows, we are short of speech therapists. Following the publication of the report we are considering, in consultation with interested parties, what we should do to try to increase the number of speech therapists.

Illegal Immigrants (National Insurance Cards)

Mr. Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that present precautions are sufficient to prevent National Insurance cards being issued to illegal immigrants; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: National Insurance cards must be issued to all persons, including immigrants, who became insurable under the National Insurance Acts and apply for them. However, I am introducing generally a procedure whereby applicants who should hold passports will be asked to produce them, or, in the case of EEC nationals, an identity document. The primary purpose will be to confirm the accuracy of personal particulars required for National Insurance purposes, but if any irregularities are noticed which give rise to suspicion of illegal entry or presence the Home Office Immigration Service will be informed.

Mr. Fowler: That announcement will be much welcomed. Has it not been shown on several occasions that once an illegal immigrant gets into the country he is able to get not only a job but a

National Insurance card? If this position were changed, would not the prospects of success of illegal immigrants be dramatically changed?

Sir K. Joseph: I am not able to answer that. I repeat that, under the statutes, the job of my Department is to issue insurance cards to the people who apply for jobs. That is the primary reason for seeking more details about their identity before issuing the card.

THE HAGUE

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek an official invitation to visit The Hague.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the fact that the French Government have flouted the International Court at The Hague by not turning up suggest to the Prime Minister that he should talk directly to President Pompidou about it?

The Prime Minister: The decision whether or not to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court beyond the international affairs on which it has been previously accepted is always a matter for the country itself.

PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (TALKS)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official talks with President Pompidou.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the talks he had with President Pompidou; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his meeting with President Pompidou.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement regarding his recent visit to President Pompidou.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply which I gave to


my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) on 24th May.—[Vol. 857, c. 129.]

Mr. Clinton Davies: As the Prime Minister has presided over a massive increase of about 35 per cent. in food prices since June 1970, has he mentioned to President Pompidou the desirability of Britain's reverting to a policy of substantial food subsidies? Bearing in mind that that would represent a derogation from the EEC rules, what response to that suggestion does the right hon. Gentleman think that he would get from President Pompidou?

The Prime Minister: All I was able to discuss with President Pompidou was the decision of Ministers of Agriculture to review the whole operation of the common agricultural policy and, in particular to try to increase the food supplies of Europe, because it is basic shortages that lie at the root of the problem.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Prime Minister recall that when he first met President Pompidou after being elected Prime Minister he came back with the so-called Common Market design? Does he recall more recently coming back from a visit to President Pompidou waving the grand regional strategy that would save the peripheral areas of this country, which has been a disaster? Would not it be better for all concerned for him to discuss the weather the next time he meets President Pompidou?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman only reveals his ignorance in not realising that regional policy is not settled in the Community.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he discussed the position of the Yaoundé associates of the EEC and the third world generally?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It is natural that on a matter that concerns particularly France and Britain—because of the number of territories that were formerly associated with both countries—we should have had a discussion about the future of the agreement and how the third world can best be helped.

Mr. Ashton: Did not the Prime Minister and President Pompidou make a deal whereby the Prime Minister agreed

to let our food prices reach the level of French food prices and, in return, President Pompidou agreed that he would not push too hard the stabilising of the pound? When will the Prime Minister live up to his promise to stabilise the level of our currency, so that he can stand on his feet when he meets President Pompidou and bring up the question of food subsidies?

The Prime Minister: No such arrangement has ever been made. The present Government followed their predecessors in accepting the common agricultural policy in the negotiations.

Mr. Marten: Now that we have had almost six months' experience of the Common Market, will the Prime Minister say clearly that the Government are not in favour of any move towards federalism?

The Prime Minister: I have already told the House that the argument about federalism is an entirely artificial one. We agreed at the summit to organise our institutions so as best to suit the other members of the Community. Special responsibility rests with members of the European Parliament to put forward proposals to give the European Parliament more power and influence.

Mr. Molloy: Will the Prime Minister be prepared to consider making further representations to the French President about the envisaged nuclear tests, because of the increase in the volume of protest in this House and throughout the country and by the New Zealanders and the Australians? Will the Prime Minister be prepared to go back to President Pompidou and tell him that the House and the nation ally themselves with the Australians and the New Zealanders? Will he tell him that the tests should not take place, because they constitute an affront to humanity and to the peace of the world?

The Prime Minister: As I have always told the House, I found that President Pompidou was well aware of the views of the Government and their predecessors, and fully aware of the views of the Australian and New Zealand Governments.

Mr. Redmond: Did my right hon. Friend discuss with President Pompidou


the Fifth Directive of the Common Market? If that was discussed, did President Pompidou give any indication of what the French Government think about that directive and what they propose to do about it when considering industrial relations?

Hon. Members: Give him a job.

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss that directive in particular. We discussed the whole question of social policy for the developing Community, from the point of view not only of social services but of the relationship between management and unions in industry.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about regional policy—he said that there had been no decision about it as yet—will be say, on the best information available to him, when he expects regional policy to be settled?

The Prime Minister: The agreement at the summit was that it would be settled and a fund established by the end of this year.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Did not one of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministers indicate yesterday that there will be a final decision by the end of June?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is confusing the position with the interim arrangement, which concerns the three acceding members or the three new members of the Community. The regional policy itself is not bound to be worked out and the fund established—in other words, the permanent policy—until the end of this year.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1969 (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Home Department and the Department of Health and Social Security in the implementation of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we are to have any long-term impact on rising crime figures we can do so only by ensuring that there are adequate resources for dealing with juvenile offenders? Does he also agree that those who have to deal with children are not always responding to a crisis. Further, is he concerned about the rising number of convictions for violent crime committed by young people, which rose at an even greater rate than the 40 per cent. rise in violent crime that has taken place since the Government first came to office?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We shall be able to make real progress, or the amount of progress that the House wants to see, only when we can produce more and more resources to do so. Of course, there is concern about the number of convictions but, on the other hand, one of the matters that has exercised the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on both sides of the House is the age of prosecution. Action has been taken through advice to the police. I am told that 59,000 or just on 60,000 juveniles under 17 were cautioned by the police. That represents 50 per cent. of those who were prosecuted. The point I wish to make is that the numbers now being handled by way of cautions have increased considerably.

Mr. Fowler: Has not one of the difficulties of the Act been the extreme reluctance on the Hart of some children's departments to send children into residential care—a policy that is not always in the interests of either the children or the public? Will my right hon. Friend say what progress is being made in the implementation of community homes?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend will let me or the Secretary of State for the Home Department have information of instances where this has been happening we shall gladly see whether action can be taken.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the major part of the Act is still in cold storage? Further, does he appreciate that the planning and consultation for that legislation began as early as late 1964? Does he


accept that it was intended that the legislation would meet needs which were acute then and which have since increased in intensity? Is he sure that it is not possible that the right wing of the Magistrates Association, with its traditional reactionaries, might have nobbled the Government on this matter?

The Prime Minister: I cannot agree that the major part of the Act is in cold storage. That is not correct, on the information that I have before me. The Act has been substantially implemented. There are, I think, four sections which remain still to be implemented in part or in whole. I have here a list of the matters that have been implemented in the Act. I do not want to bore the House with that list. I shall either let the hon. Gentleman have a copy or put the list into the OFFICIAL REPORT to show how much has been done.

Mr. Pardoe: We should be concerned about crimes committed by juveniles, but we should be even more concerned about crimes committed against juveniles. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in recent years there has been a significant increase in the so-called "baby-bashing" syndrome? Does he realise that very few such cases ever come to court? Further, does he not think that there is a need to amend the law and to give babies the same protection as older children and adults?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly have that matter investigated if the hon. Gentleman wishes. That point is not concerned with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

SCOTLAND

Mr, Edward Taylor: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I expect to do so later in the summer.

Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that before the Government come to a final decision in the autumn about the Hardman Report he will take the opportunity of visiting one of the Government offices that have been dispersed successfully to Scotland, with

improved efficiency and lower costs? Does he appreciate that all shades of opinion in Scotland find the Hardman Report, with its proposal to disperse about 1,000 jobs to Scotland and 10,000 jobs to a new town about 50 miles from London, utterly unacceptable and a negation of regional development?

The Prime Minister: I have visited Government offices in which dispersal has already taken place in many parts of the country, including Glasgow. I did so when I was Leader of the Opposition and I have done so since I have been Prime Minister. The Government have published the Hardman Report so that there can be public discussion about it, and so that not only the House but local authorities and other organisations including the staff side of the Civil Service, which is very much affected, can express its views, and they can be taken into account. In the circumstances, my hon. Friend will not expect me to commit myself to any particular aspect or any particular place. Of the posts already dispersed, Scotland has had 20 per cent. Of those now settled and awaiting dispersal, Scotland will receive 25 per cent. and when the operation is concluded, apart from Hardman, Scotland will have had 21 per cent. of those civil servants who have been moved out of London.

Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that from Scotland's point of view that is very unsatisfactory? Will the Prime Minister explain, wherever and whenever he goes to Scotland, why he has failed to dissociate himself from the insulting opinion of Sir Henry Hardman that Scotland is irrelevant to the running of national government.

The Prime Minister: In fairness to all concerned, the right hon. Gentleman should read the whole of paragraph 14 of Appendix X of the report very carefully. The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised the position from the Scottish point of view. Administration devolved to St. Andrew's House and similarly to Wales is extremely successful, but it is working against a background in which Ministers are spending their time not where the people are devolved but at the centre of decision-taking, which is undoubtedly close to this House


and has to remain so. That is the context in which Sir Henry Hardman was writing in paragraph 14 of the report.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In his consideration of the Hardman Report will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not overlook the view that has long been taken by some Government Members that the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom may be even better served by the dispersal of civil servants out of the Civil Service altogether, rather than to other parts of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I am prepared to be reminded of that by my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Steel: When the Prime Minister goes to Scotland will he make it clear that ministerial decision-making has very little to do with the decision or the recommendation to place the Agricultural Research Council and other units of the Agricultural Centre at Manchester, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board—an office of only about 80 employees—in an urban centre such as Plymouth?

The Prime Minister: There are some individual parts of Government which can be dispersed to a wide variety of places. That is what has been happening successfully during the past 10 years. There are other parts—those parts which Sir Henry Hardman was asked to investigate—whose proximity to Ministers and to Parliament is important. What he has been trying to weigh up, and what hon. Members will accept, whether or not they agree with the proposed location of the changes, is the cost in efficiency of dispersal of those associated with the policy-making compared with the advantages of regional development. I should have thought that a report as long as his and as carefully worked out demanded the most careful consideration by hon. Members.

Hon. Members: Question No. 5.

Mr. Speaker: Business of the House—

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not entitled to call any Question after 3.30.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That at this day's Sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Third Reading of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill [Lords] not later than Five o'clock or one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Prior.]

Mr. David Steel: I understand that this matter is debatable. I should like to seek an assurance from the Leader of the House before we agree to this motion about the effect that it will have on the remaining stages of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] It is all very well for other hon. Members to groan, but some of us were discussing this matter at six o'clock this morning.

Mr. Ross: And we shall be discussing it at six o'clock tomorrow morning.

Mr. Steel: I think that we are entitled to know what are the Government's intentions about the remaining 100 or so Government amendments still to be discussed, together with about 40 other amendments, and the effect of including the Third Reading of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill in the middle of the Report stage of another Bill. This is a very objectionable procedure, especially in view of the assurances given in Committee about the adequate time that would be allowed for Report stage.
I have every sympathy with those non-Scottish Members who object to being kept here at all hours of the night to discuss Scottish business, in which they have no constituency interest. There are other remedies for that situation, of course, but I should be out of order to pursue them now.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if we include this item now, what time he proposes to finish the proceedings on the Scottish Bill tonight?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): The House will know that the debate on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill is open ended. I believe that the arrangements that we have made are in the general interests of the House as a whole. I am full of admiration for the endurance of Scottish Members last


night and of other hon. Members, too, and I am sorry for the inconvenience that this arrangement has caused, but I believe it to be in the interests of the House as a whole. The sooner that we pass on to the next business, the sooner we can get through it, and then, with any luck, we can get on to Scottish business.

Mr. Grimond: I do not want to delay the House, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman's desire to pass on to the next business, but we cannot be blackmailed into passing on in a matter of this importance. The Local Government (Scotland) Bill is the most important Scottish Bill to come before the House for many years. Many areas of Scotland were not represented in Committee, and many important issues were raised which needed adequate debate on Report. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that it was his intention to press strongly for adequate time for Report and that he had no reason to suppose that he would not get it.
I am sure that we all agree that "adequate time" should not be taken to mean that important amendments—for instance, as to extending the classes of people who are entitled to stand in local government elections—should be discussed at five o'clock in the morning.
This is another example, first, of the bad organisation of our business and, second, of disrespect to Scotland. We had over a fortnight's holiday a week ago, and in the circumstances the people of Scotland will not understand why we cannot conclude our business before 7 a.m. No ordinary, decently-run business would dream of tackling important matters at breakfast time after a ten-hour session.
I hope that we shall make some progress, that the Leader of the House will take this to heart and that this type of operation will not occur again. We have been put into great difficulty also by the printing dispute. It may be no one's fault, but it has not made it easier to treat these matters with the great seriousness that they deserve. This is a very important Bill which will have effects in every part of Scotland. It will create a new region which raises important issues

and which should not be considered just before breakfast after an all-night sitting.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the Leader of the House will take this matter seriously. We are being delayed in starting our business in respect of the reorganisation of Scottish local government because the Government on another occasion considered it inappropriate for the House to start discussing the reorganisation of the Health Service in England and Wales after 11.30 p.m.
We in Scotland consider it inappropriate that the most important local government measure that we have considered for probably 40 years should be treated in this offhand way. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a pledge that he will look again at the possibility of finishing at a reasonable hour tonight and taking the later stages at a later date?

Mr. Prior: I recognise that there are difficulties for Scottish Members and for the whole House. I have to consider the weight of business before the House at this time of year. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides for the difficulty in which we may have placed them. I have tried to reach agreement through the usual channels on this issue and I am grateful for the co-operation that I have had. I apologise to the House for the situation.
I must assure all Scottish Members and Scotland that no disrespect is meant to them in this. We had exactly the same trouble over the English Local Government Bill last Session. I hope that the Scots will accept that business at this time of year is very pressing. I hope that the assurance that we will try in future to arrange our business better will allow us to get on with the business for today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That at this day's Sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Third Reading of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill [Lords] not later than Five o'clock or one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.

CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT ACT 1960 (AMENDMENT)

3.37 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by compelling local authorities to adhere to the model standards for residential caravan sites as recommended in 1960 in relation to refuse collection, piped water, sanitary provision and roads.
The Bill, which deals with mobile homes and caravan sites, is related to residential sites and to no others. At the moment, roughly 250,000 people live in 91.500 units of accommodation known as mobile homes. It appears from the figures that the tendency to adopt this type of abode is on the increase. The Bill would make mandatory some of the model rules adopted in 1960 and a revision of those rules in the light of existing circumstances. The particular rules which should be made mandatory on local authorities and site owners relate to piped water, sanitary provision, roads and electricity.
It goes without saying that many sites in this country are excellent, the provision is excellent and the mobile home is of a very high quality. It is also true that some local authorities discharge their duties very well. But there is no compulsion on local authorities to adhere to the model rules, and I regret to say that some do not make much effort to keep their sites up to date.
I think that the whole House would agree that community toilet facilities in 1973 are totally outmoded and should not be tolerated by anyone. It is also true that the electricity demands of mobile homes have greatly increased since the 1960 rules were brought into operation. The demand for electricity for refrigerators, heating and television sets has greatly increased, yet it is not mandatory for this to be supplied. Indeed, in many areas where owners and local authorities are prepared to make the electricity supply available, they find that it is far too costly.
In particular, the neglect of many such sites is due to the fact that they are made available on very short-term leases. Leases as short as for five years or 10

years are not uncommon. Therefore, it stands to reason that it is non-economic for owners to provide the facilities which should be provided in order to make the standard of living reasonable if the site is to fall into disuse within a short period. We should look carefully at the number of years allowed for a caravan site to be leased.
Again, there is great concern among site dwellers and some local authorities about the difficulty of collecting refuse. Some of this is due to the attitude of local authorities but more often to the fact that the roads on many sites are so narrow that refuse collection vehicles cannot get around them in a reasonable way. There is also increasing evidence that the larger mobile homes and the amenities now going with them—such as sheds—are taking up far more space, with increased fire risks. The result is that fire authorities, which have engines longer and wider than in the past, are pointing out that there is inability to reach or difficulty in reaching areas where there is a fire or a fire risk.
The whole situation concerning these homes needs careful consideration and legislation to compel local authorities and owners to bring them up to standard. We have seen over the years an increasing number of elderly people, when approaching retirement age, purchasing mobile homes because that is the way they want to spend their remaining years. Some of them, by ignorance or perhaps because they were not fully informed that the site had only a short-term lease—such as has occurred in my constituency and many others—find that they are at great financial risk, for these mobile homes are not inexpensive. Some elderly people may have spent a lifetime's savings only to find that the site chosen is to be acquired or its lease is shortly to run out. They thereby lose the value of their home because it is greatly diminished by there being no site available. They are therefore often pushed into accommodation they do not want.
Worse than that is the evidence that some local authorities are not taking the trouble to rehouse many of these people unless they have a certain compassionate or priority claim. There is no doubt that since 1960 great changes have taken place in the mode of mobile home dwelling, and as the homes are getting


bigger the sites, many of which were designed as long ago as 20, 30 and more years for smaller units, give rise to overcrowding and other problems.
It is also important to bear in mind that there are standard homes. I believe that British Standard 3632 is one of the best and is capable of being connected to all mains services. I believe that it is vital that local authorities should be compelled to provide the local services such as electricity, water and the rest to which these caravans can be fitted. Yet there is no way in which this can be done through present legislation.
Moreover, and as important, many mobile homes or caravans of very old design on residential sites are being used by growing families, although they are not suitable and were never designed for the purpose. It is difficult, however, for local authorities to prevent it.
I am asking the Government to look favourably on improving the conditions and, indeed, on putting a bomb under some of the local authorities which have been so lax in discharging their duties. I ask the Government not only to compel the local authorities to apply the model rules but to revise them in the light of developments in the 1970s.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Thomas Cox and Mr. A. W. Stallard.

CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT ACT 1960 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by compelling local authorities to adhere to the model standards for residential caravan sites as recommended in 1960 in relation to refuse collection, piped water, sanitary provision and roads, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th July and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REORGANISATION BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

3.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In Committee I paid tribute to the civilised, constructive, yet combative Committee stage. This Bill embodies practical proposals to improve the National Health Service for the public. To this practical reform the contribution of the Opposition has not been so constructive. They have produced useful Green Papers, they have engaged in some interesting thinking aloud, particularly about hypothetical situations—for example, what might happen if it were feasible to bring the NHS within local government—and there have been a few good practical suggestions, but on the more difficult issues they have really never made their minds up about what should be done, and where they did appear to have made their minds up, they have changed them during the passage of the Bill, and will no doubt change them again. Uncertain as to what should be done, they have fallen back on vague criticism and generalised smears.
As a result, there has been a good deal of ritual rudeness about the Bill, but the area of agreement has, in fact, been large. On four of the six themes set out in the Explanatory Memorandum there has been no real disagreement. First, it is accepted that the service should be administered under new health authorities covering the whole range of care—not as an end in itself, but in order to ensure a better service for the patient, better use of resources and better opportunities for reordering local priorities in the interests of the relatively neglected sectors of the service. Although the Opposition have argued that this is only a transitional stage, they have not said either that the service could be brought under local government next year or when such a transfer might be possible.
Secondly, it is common ground that we must provide for collaboration between the new health service authorities and local authority services and between the NHS and voluntary organisations. There was a little complaint about complexity, but there were no real suggestions for improvement.
Thirdly, the need to continue NHS responsibilities for medical and dental teaching facilities has been generally accepted, as has the wide range of health service powers and duties contained in the Bill.
Fourth, the establishment of the health service commissioners has been generally welcomed. Admittedly, some would have liked wider and some narrower terms of reference, but we think the balance in the Bill is right.
There has been a good deal of discussion of a fifth theme, that of how best to ensure that the views of the health professions and staff generally are given their full weight in the planning and management of services. Discussion has, however, underlined the view we took in the Bill that, because of the professional complexity of the service, it would be quite impossible adequately to represent the views of the various professions and staff groups on the health authorities themselves. Although the Opposition began by advocating professional representatives on area health authorities, their position had shifted considerably by Report stage in this House.
The main centre of disagreement has, of course, been the sixth theme—the means in each area of representing the interests of the community. We have seen no alternative, at least in the foreseeable future, to this being a national, centrally financed service, in which the basic democratic accountability is through Ministers to Parliament.
Area health authorities, working through their health districts, with the new officer, the community physician, and the new mechanism, the health care planning teams, to help them will identify the health needs of their public and organise to meet them. There will now in each area be systematic efforts over the year to serve the health needs of all—the acute, of course, but also the non-acute, the afflicted, the disabled the

elderly—the other groups which are in all our minds.
The regional and area health authorities will be staffed by expert officers and will be led by chairmen and members chosen because of their interest in the National Health Service and their drive, judgment and humanity. They will not manage in the narrow sense. They will guide their officers, who will carry out the detailed work of administration. They will be intensely concerned with the public's views and needs, but the main voice of the consumer will be the 200 new community health councils monitoring the performance of the local health service and influencing planning and decision-taking by continuous dialogue with the area health authorities.
Most community health council members will have at least as great an influence on the service as most hospital management committee members have today. Including community health council membership, the opportunity for lay members will be as great as now.
The Opposition's alternative is to increase the proportion of local authority members on health authorities. We have about 25 per cent. They began at a third and ended at over a half. Of course, local authority members have an important rôle, as providers of services which must interact with health, providers of social services, housing, education.
The Opposition are not saying that health authorities should be elected not that here and now the National Health Service should be run by local government. They are saying that a few more local authority members—busy men and women with huge direct responsibilities of their own—will transform the service and somehow make the health authorities automatically more responsive to the real needs—not only the obvious but the not so obvious needs—of the public.
Here is no issue of principle. Putting the National Health Service under local government would be such an issue. That is not the Opposition's proposal. They would substitute for the community health councils, half of whose membership will come from enthusiastic representatives of those very voluntary bodies most in need of an effective National Health Service, an increase in the proportion of local authority members.
It will be hard enough for the four local authority members we propose for each authority. They will be nominated, we hope, because of their responsibility for large local authority services crucial to the National Health Service. They will be very busy people if they are to contribute effectively to both bodies. There is not an unlimited supply of effective councillors with time to be effective both in local government and in the National Health Service.
The service will, I believe, be less bureaucratic because the area health authorities will have far more power than exists in hospital management committees at present. The management structure which the Opposition enjoys smearing—has been carefully designed for the huge, humane purposes of the National Health Service—to involve the doctors and nurses in the management and to enable, through health care planning teams, all relevant skills to plan together for any aspect of the service.
There have been legitimate anxieties about the effect of untried changes. We are necessarily breaking new ground in a number of ways, for example, in organising a comprehensive service on an area basis matching local government, in new management arrangements, and in new forms of consumer representation. We are doing so on the basis of study of past experience and exhaustive examination of the alternatives. We have good reason to believe that they will achieve the results expected of them, and improve the service to the patient. But we shall need carefully to monitor their operation and make adjustments if necessary.
Reorganisation will undoubtedly involve a great upheaval for the administration of the service, and the practical problems of the transition will place a heavy additional load on the existing staff. Every effort will be made not only to maintain services but to continue their development. We have to recognise, however, that some work on desirable developments will have to be deferred until after reorganisation has been carried through. This is a cost we shall keep to the minimum but it is worth facing for the benefits we can derive from reorganisation. It will be

a matter of pausing in order to advance the better.
Reorganisation will enable the management and devoted staffs—medical, nursing, paramedical, technical, ancillary and administrative—to provide a better, more sensitive service for the patient, better shaped for all the local needs.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I begin by making one brief point of agreement with the Secretary of State. It was certainly an agreeable and civilised Committee stage. Had we had the pleasure of the right hon. Gentleman's company for a little longer in Committee than we did, it may be that he would have understood some of the issues dividing the two sides a little better than he does at the moment.
Secondly, I express two regrets on which I may carry the right hon. Gentleman with me. The first is that, for all their apparent desire to deal with community politics, there does not seem to be a single Member of the Liberal Party here to discuss what is, after all, the most important reorganisation of the National Health Service that we have had in 25 years.
My other regret is that there should have been so little reporting of the Bill's various stages in the Press. Our debates showed very clearly the deep issues that there were and involved Parliament with them.
Basically there have been three major centres of controversy. The first is the whole managerial concept embodied in the Bill's proposals, which struck us when we read the Bill and strikes us now as undemocratic and self-defeating. The old National Health Service was hospital-dominated. The new service will also be hospital-dominated. I noticed that the Secretary of State mentioned community health councils. It was the right hon. Gentleman who spoke about changes of mind. Rather late in the day and after several changes of mind on his side he finally soldered on to the ramshackle structure of the new service a community health council concept different from the one first introduced. But to our mind even in its latest form it is one which could not by any stretch of the imagination be called democratic. The


new health service will emerge inflexible and incapable of constructive change.
The second point of controversy is that the new health service, like the old, remains Whitehall-administered. From time to time we were given two reasons against local government control. Today the Secretary of State mentioned what appeared to be a third reason. The first was that finance would have to come from central Government funds. It was said, therefore, that there would be no real local independence. The second was that the medical profession would refuse to co-operate.
As to the first argument, there is hardly one aspect of local government today which does not require central Government finance. If one considers education as an example, central Government finance has a dominant share. But no one could doubt that local government in this connection is as independent as ever.
As to the second, in Committee the hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan), himself a distinguished member of the medical profession, made a very important announcement when he said that, while his profession would not wish to be bedevilled by party politics when doing its work, it would be willing to co-operate with whatever pattern of health service Parliament decided upon, whether or not it was local government controlled.
Neither of these objections should have prevented the Bill from a move in the direction of local authority control preferably by a greater proportion of membership of the relevant authorities coming from local authority appointees, whatever proportion might have been chosen. That could have been a matter for argument and there could be changes of mind when considering the total number of members of a given local authority. But whether they ought to have a dominant share was undoubtedly a major matter argued by Opposition hon. Members. In addition, we said that the actual workers in the health service, who had lavish tributes paid to them by hon. Members of all parties, were as little represented in the running of the new health service as they were in the old and that this was a matter which should have been remedied.
The third reason concerns the structure of the authorities. The obvious unit of operation in the health service is the health district. The Grey Book says that. The foolish reorganisation of local government last year has made it impossible to create an efficient health service. Thus, the area health authority has been inserted into this Bill as if the Redcliffe-Maud proposals were still in operation. This has created a series of anomalies which no amount of resilience will be able to resolve.
In London, for example, health and social services which ought to be operated at the same administrative level will now be shared among three or in some cases even four authorities. It is true that in the early hours of the morning the Under-Secretary described the situation in London as "the least damaging compromise that the Government could find." If the Government's verdict on their own reorganisation of the health service is that it contains the least damaging compromise they can find, our description is a shorter one: the Bill is a disaster.
Fortunately, it is not a Bill that will go on for ever. It will be swept away and forgotten in a short time, and the real reorganisation of the health service will be done by a Labour Government. For these reasons I call on my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide against the Third Reading.

4.1 p.m.

Sir Robin Turton: I on the other hand wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon his success in unifying the National Health Service. All of us would agree that there is an inherent weakness in the present health service in that it contains overlapping services as a result of its being divided, like Gaul, into three parts. To avoid the waste involved with overlapping services, too much time of skilled people, doctors, nurses and others has been devoted to committee work. It seems to be the great achievement of the Bill to deal with this. Whatever the views of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), which he might manufacture for a Third Reading Opposition speech, we are really on the same point.
We have heard it said that the Bill is too managerial and not sufficiently democratic. This is based on a misconception of the function of democracy. It is not the function of democracy to take an active part in healing and the prevention of disease. The function of democracy is a responsibility to see that money voted to the service is sufficient and is not wasted. That can be done perfectly well by this House, the Select Committee on Public Expenditure and the Public Accounts Committee.
There is the other major function of trying to rectify abuses and to point to deficiencies in the service. This is where I see Section 9 and the community health councils being of value. This is the proper area for democratic control and for democratic stimulus in the service. There are too, in Part III, the health service commissioners.
I commend the main structure of the Bill and disagree with the line taken by the Opposition. I have spent many hours reading through various essays by Labour hon. and right hon. Members—I regret that the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) is not here—who have made attempts to reorganise the health service. They were all far worse than this Bill. Should the Labour Party ever come into power and return to some of those old Green and White Papers, it will be a sad day for the National Health Service.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend for two assurances. I should like to be assured that we will have a statement on the guidelines of administration. I am convinced that there is much misery caused to patients and that there is a waste of public expenditure as a result of the failure to encourage small hospitals in local areas under the general practitioners. I know quite well that there are parts of the country where from time immemorial these have existed.
Unfortunately, through the attempt to concentrate on the large district hospital these smaller hospitals are becoming fewer and the links are not there. The damage to the patient, especially the elderly patient, is great. Some of the very old require nursing care that cannot be supplied in their home. What is happening at present in many parts of the country is that when these old people

get to that state they are removed to hospitals far from their friends and relatives. The result is that they are not visited. This is bad for their treatment and wasteful for the country. I hope my right hon. Friend can give us an assurance that he will try to solve this problem in the reorganised health service. I believe that in every market town in a rural area there should be a small hospital under general practitioners looking after people who are convalescent from the district hospital, for looking after geriatrics.
The other assurance I seek is perhaps more modest. Nowhere have I seen or heard mention of freedom of clinical choice. There is a certain diversity of treatment allowed in the health service. Let us consider homeopathy. There are 383 beds for the homeopathic patients and 51,000 attendances. That is terribly small if we look at the overall total in Great Britain—500,000 and 10 million respectively. It is important to those who believe in this treatment rather than in the majority of treatments offered by the medical practitioners. Those who are keen on homeopathy are anxious, in view of what has been happening recently.
The Hahneman Hospital in Liverpool has been closed, and it is feared that there will be a withdrawal of facilities in the National Health Service. I ask my right hon. Friend to give the assurance that the rôle of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital as a national centre will continue under the new service and that there will be a continuance of clinical choice.
I should like to remind the House of what Mr. Aneurin Bevan said on this subject at the beginning of the National Health Service. It shows the wise judgment of the man who introduced this service, however much we may differ from him in other branches of politics. He said:
Obviously, if the homeopathic hospitals are brought into the scheme it must be regarded as a principle of fundamental importance that their special sectarian and individual character must be preserved because for the people who believe in it that in itself will be a part of the therapy and the treatment. In trying to restore people to good health the spiritual as well as the physical aspects are of profound importance. That applies to Catholic hospitals and to all hospitals with the special characteristics. If they are to be brought in it must be the


obligation of the regional boards in establishing their management committee to see that these management committees are of a character which maintains the continuity of the characteristics of those institutions. I think that I can give that absolute guarantee because otherwise it would be an emotional mutilation which nobody could possibly defend.
I think it is very important, therefore, that we get that assurance before the final stage of the Bill.
In conclusion, there was a short time when I looked after the health of this country. May I say how pleased I am that it is my party that has made this forward step in the National Health Service. Britain is pre-eminent in the world in its treatment of health. This is because it is something that all parties have shared in, but in particular it is because we have, I believe, the finest doctors, the finest nurses and the finest ancillary workers. Because there is such a good team there, I am confident in leaving the National Health Service in their able hands.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) brings to the debate his profound knowledge as a previous Minister of Health and, of course, he puts his finger right on the common ground of agreement, and that is the unification of the tripartite system. It is because of that agreement that this side of the House, in Committee and elsewhere, was so forcible on the fact—and Green Paper mark I, Green Paper mark II, consultative document mark I, the consultative paper of the Government, I have studied the lot—that what started out as being a simplification emerged as a monster of bureaucracy and ended as a bureaucratic monster. What happened throughout the Committee stage, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said, was that we were trying to bring some democracy to it. The previous health service brought in 10,000 lay people at various stages but this Bill provides for only 1,600.

Sir K. Joseph: That figure is entirely wrong. About the same number of lay persons will be involved in the new service as were involved in the old service.

Mr. Pavitt: I accept that, because the right hon. Gentleman is the expert. But

he knows that for effective power he has 90 area committees in England, 14 regional boards with 15 members on each, compared with the old system. However, I do not wish to cross swords further on that.
I want to follow the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the Committee. I have served on many committees since I have been here and I agree with him that this was one of the most civilised. I enjoyed very much the way in which the whole debate was conducted. I do not want to perpetuate the old story about the boat race, where everybody en my side rowed very well but stroke rowed twice as fast as anybody else. However, I want to pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). This was the first time that I had worked with him, and he did much work behind the scenes which saved a great deal of time in Committee. I also want to pay a tribute to the Under-Secretary, who carried so much of the weight. I think the mantle of one of the great Tory parliamentarians, Rab Butler, must have fallen on his shoulders, because I know no other Member who can speak so sweetly and give the soft answer that turns away wrath and show so much sympathy and understanding while making no concessions whatever.
I am sorry for the right hon. Gentleman because during his term of office he has gained in reputation for compassion in many areas, but nobody except him and his colleagues likes this Bill. Everybody who knows anything about the matter is against it and only the managerial consultants whom the right hon. Gentleman employed accept it. The reason is that we were expecting the service to be totally restructured and all he has done is to move the furniture around. The greatest failure is that he was after integration but has failed to get it. In practical terms, instead of integrating the three types of doctors—the community physician, the family doctor and the consultant doctor—he has managed to leave them separate and has left intact the local executive council that was and re-named it as the new family practitioner committee. He has failed to integrate regional and teaching consultants. He has introduced in Clause 4 an entirely new principle of charging for prescriptions, in that for the first time there is a charge for preventive


medicine whereas previously charges were only for treatment prescriptions.
The practical difficulties are enormous, and I think that the sympathy of the House will go out to the right hon. Gentleman in the next 12 months when he is trying to solve these. Already anomalies are emerging. It is difficult for this House to understand why, when it comes to a regional team, he is going to have a team of people all equal in status and with special knowledge but the administrative member of the team is going to get £40 a week more than the nurse and the regional nursing officers are going to get £2,000 a year less than the administrators. I hope that when the Bill finally gets under way the right hon. Gentleman will be able to solve this anomaly.
Already I am afraid that the National Health Service Advisory Committee is proving to be a managerial dictator. There is a whole series of jobs for which various people will not be permitted to apply; for example, those now in postgraduate hospitals will not be eligible for the posts in the new service. The right hon. Gentleman say that later on they will perhaps be permitted to apply; but what it amounts to is that when this service is established in whole regions of expertise doctors, nurses and administrators will not be permitted to apply for jobs within the new set-up, and I think this is bad.
Like my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, I pray for an October General Election so that we can put this badly conceived reorganisation right before these new arrangements are fully in operation.

4.18 p.m.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: I find some difficulty in supporting the Bill. Indeed, I feel that I cannot support it when I consider the problems of the National Health Service and realise that the Bill will not do very much to solve them. They are problems of inadequacy and inequality, and nothing in this Bill is going to put them right.
The main inadequacies of the National Health Service are an inadequate supply of the right doctors, an inadequate number of nurses in the right place, and an inadequate amount of cash. Yet this Bill is going to concentrate on the redistribution and realignment of administra-

tive and managerial services. If my right hon. Friend, for whom there is much respect in the medical service, could guarantee a supply of better administrators, and more administrators, we would be happy. But nothing in this Bill leads me to believe that we are necessarily going to improve recruitment to administration.
The service, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) said, is dependent on the good will and ability of doctors, nurses and ancillary staff. Yet these people are going to have less to do with the running of the National Health Service in future. They are going to find their powers of control diminished. The new battle of disease will be led by the quartermasters from the supporting arms rather than the generals who have fought previously. We are going to have little check on their functions and ability because the only check is the voice or democracy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said that disease has nothing to do with democracy; but it has, because the voice of democracy can also be heard in local government chambers, in this House and, in the past, in hospital management committees and regional hospital boards. This voice is going to be stilled and its functions will not be carried out adequately by anyone else. Once we get people who are appointed by Whitehall they will be looking anxiously for their CBE or OBE and the New Year's Honours List. This means getting in the good books of those in authority, and they are going to decide what happens in the National Health Service.
That is why I feel it is difficult to support the Bill. We have not gone to the root of the matter, which is how to get the most money and the best doctors in places where they are needed.
I have never believed in this derogation of the teaching hospitals. I think we need centres of excellence, but there is kudos, professional amusement almost, and certainly professional satisfaction in working in the best centres. So there is a natural desire to work there. It therefore seems unreasonable that the people who work in those centres should also be paid very much more on the merit award


system, whereby if one works in a teaching hospital where one has this special satisfaction, one gets greater rewards. They are getting it both ways.
Over and above this, those who work in the acute arms of medicine—in the surgery and in medicine itself—can do so much better than those who work at the dreary task of psychiatry, particularly those concerned with the mentally sub, normal rather than the mental abnormal. If we saw a process of a more even or, indeed, uneven distribution of the merit award so that the best doctors were attracted to the least favourable areas and branches of the profession, it would be so much better than the time that we have wasted on the Bill, which will cause turmoil where there should be tranquillity.
As well as the redistribution of doctors, we need the redistribution of nurses. Governments over the past few years have destroyed the thrill and satisfaction of nursing. We have replaced a service which was devoted to the care of the individual with a system of administrative grades, so that no longer is the ward sister the queen of all she surveys and no longer is it the peak of a nursing career to be a ward sister or practising matron. There are to be curious people called administrative officers who live tucked well away from the patients. No one will know the matron or the sister. The matron is to disappear. The nursing service has been destroyed. Bureaucracy has moved in here just as in the rest of the health service.
I turn now to preventive medicine. At Question Time today questions were asked about varying aspects of medicine—kidney disease, crippled children, abnormal children, and so on. We should be trying to see what we can do to prevent renal disease so that we do not have to worry about the kidney banks. Yet we allow women to have children in inadequate surroundings and treatment is inadequately followed up. Indeed, there is an enormous surprise when 20 years later people appear in the surgery suffering from a kidney disease.
Preventive medicine must be extended for the hospital service, the social service and general practice and into the factories. Now that both men and women work together and are equally potential

candidates for the renal or other units, we should seek them out at their places of work. People in their mass are susceptable to propaganda. We should be able to persuade them to come forward and submit to screening. All the screening that we have is still only in the realms of private medicine. It should be extended and increased in the National Health Service so that we can pick out those who may have the disease before it becomes both costly and deadly.
The Bill is composed and written by well-intentioned people who have made a great impression over the last three years in their work for society, but it will not solve the needs of the general public. The patient will be no better off and local government will be no better off. We shall have bureaucracy where we had democracy. All in all, I think it would be better if we forgot the Bill.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: I do not think that many hon. Members on this side of the House could better the panegyric delivered against his own party by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford). I differ from him in only one respect—namely, the amount of democracy that he assumed took place in the old health service. I believe that it was little enough. My strictures about the Government's new plans are that they further reduce the element of public control of the health service.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), when he said that democracy should not interfere with healing or the prevention of illness, missed the whole point of the Bill, which is that it is necessary to have a health service apparatus. There are certain conditions which are not so much medical as social problems. Thus, in those conditions the siting of hospitals for geriatric patients, for mentally ill patients, and so on, is a vital concern of society. Similarly, the facilities of chemists and their availability is a vital concern of society. Where physiotherapy facilities are afforded to people is, again, a vital concern of society. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that democracy should not impinge in those areas, he is doing a very good job of reducing the status and quality of our democracy. I believe that it must enter into those


areas if it is to retain its relevance as a democracy.
Despite what the Secretary of State, in his winning way, said about there being more lay content in the new service than there was in the old, there is no doubt that the lay voice in the new health service will be reduced and will not be able to make its contribution to the running of the new service. This is a pity at a stage where I think most of us would have expected any reorganisation of the health service to have brought about more rather than less democracy. The Government have pre-empted the Crowther and Kilbrandon reports and other such measures which would have brought a sensible reorganisation of government tiers which might have been able to accommodate within an elected framework a health service which had to be put outside the elected basis because of the inadequacy of local government structure in the 1940s.
I want to concentrate my remarks on the effect that the Bill will have on Wales. We know that the regional tier as it exists in Wales is to be removed and replaced by the area health authorities, topped up by the Welsh Office. The present incumbents of the Welsh Office have elevated the instinct for self-preservation into a political philosophy.
I do not believe that the placing of the control of the new health service in Wales within the Welsh Office will result in getting the innovatory impetus that is necessary to make sure not only that medical care is adequate but that it continues to be adequate in future. The officials in that office will lack the energy and the expertise and, above all, the will power to initiate, to probe, to think and to improve. I do not think that we may expect from them the degree of superintendence of the performance of the area health authorities that will improve the quality of service to the Welsh people. Indeed, it is already commonly being said in health circles in Wales that we are entering the area of Welsh Office non-intervention. I believe that this will be profoundly damaging to the community.
Health care in Wales has improved in the last few years because the regional health authority, the regional hospital board, has adopted a philosophy of

intervention in these matters. The intelligence units and the survey teams that the Welsh Hospital Board has set up have led to a pioneering by that board in those aspjects of medicine which impinge most directly upon society—waiting lists, children in hospital, and so on. The effect of the Bill will be to reduce that service. I believe that we shall see a slowing down of the innovatory impetus that has been introduced into the health service in Wales in recent years. There will be an absence of challenge to the innate conservatism of the medical profession and of the hospital service.
The forces of inertia in a service of this magnitude are always present. It requires a very determined effort by people—preferably democratically elected lay people—to overcome that inertia. I believe that that will be entirely absent.
The Minister of State will no doubt say that we in Parliament have a chance to check the performance of the Welsh Office. If, as I suspect, the era of non-intervention in area health authorities is with us, then the tenor of the answers will be known in advance. The answers will be bland and in low key. The Ministers will have their eyes on 3.20 p.m. rather than on the future. In short, I do not believe that, as at present organised, Parliament will give an adequate opportunity for Welsh Members to play a constructive and meaning-full rôle in the health service in Wales.
Therefore, it is entirely right, and a step of historic magnitude, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) has committed the Labour Party to placing the health service within an elected Welsh Council at the earliest possible opportunity. It is important that the community should know that the health service, which is their health service, after all, is in the hands of people elected by them and answerable to them.
I believe this to be a giant step, but it is not the step which the Government have chosen. We have seen that in field after field their instinct has been to transfer powers from Parliament to a bureaucracy. This is a further example of that propensity. But no matter; we shall take away this sort of arrangement from the bureaucratic organisation and


place it in the hands of democratic bodies, because we believe that the invigorating winds of democracy will make a service worthy of all our people and the pride of us all. I regret that the present organisation seems to offer little hope of either.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I agree with the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) in the tribute that he paid to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), although I thought that the hon. Member for Pontypridd was not up to his best form this afternoon.
One of the conspicuous features about what we all accept was a very agreeable Committee was the performance of Opposition back-bench Members. They completely eclipsed their Front Bench speakers not in their charm but in their willingness to try to understand what the Bill was about. We do not expect Welsh right hon. and hon. Members to apply rigid logic. It is emotions rather than logic at which we expect the Welsh to be strongest. However, as a team, there was no attempt by the Opposition to understand what the Bill was about. Therefore, their criticisms of the Bill often missed the point.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) was quite unfair to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his crack about his absences from the Committee. My right hon. Friend was not in the Committee the whole time. No one would expect that. But when he was in the Committee he showed a great deal of illumination.
We are all agreed that the virtue of the Bill and the common ground is the need for unification and that a totally local-government-based health service is not possible at this stage. Although the Opposition seemed to waver a little about this, they did not argue or expect that this time around we would have a wholly local government service, such as we should like to have in the long run and certainly as I should like to have.
What the Opposition have failed to do justice to is the exceptionally rigorous nature of the system that is put forward. Most great administrative reforms start with a great deal of logic. As they pro-

gress through the House the logic becomes more and more diminished. One might apply that remark to our local government reform. Concessions are made in response to various interests. The original philosophy becomes blurred. As a result, one gets something that is a half measure.
A conspicious feature of the progress of the Bill is the way in which its logic has been very rigorously maintained. Whatever one may think about the whole approach of my right hon. Friend, one has to acknowledge that it has about it a coherence which is very rare. Looking at the pattern from top to bottom, one can see that it is entirely consistent. What the Secretary of State set out to do has been achieved to the "nth" degree. The basis of this logic is the belief that one must have a clear allocation of responsibility.
The Opposition constantly argued for the injection of more local government representation at different tiers, particularly the area tier because that is where the main operating force of the scheme is to apply. But the Opposition never got to grips with the question of what exactly these local government representatives were meant to be doing. Were they meant to be there simply as good chaps who knew about the community and, therefore, could say things which would relate to what people were thinking, or would they be there representing local government? To the best of my recollection, we heard nothing about how these local government representatives would report back to their local authorities, or whether they would report back. The Opposition did not think that through.
The pattern chosen by the Secretary of State is in no sense undemocratic. In this pattern democracy is placed very firmly at the top.—[Interruption.] That is the point at which the democratic contact is made. It is no good hon. Members laughing at that because that is exactly the structure which their hero Aneurin Bevan put forward when he proposed his scheme for the National Health Service.
Accountability has to lie somewhere. The Opposition were constantly arguing for schemes which would blur accountability and make it impossible to know who was responsible democratically. In this scheme it is exactly clear who is


democratically accountable. It may well be that Parliament will have to give some thought to whether it is equipped to act as a sufficient check on the Secretary of State in this structure. It may be that the Expenditure Committee will have to think very hard, in view of the heavy concentration on the management of the health service on the Secretary of State, about whether there should be a tighter means of scrutinising what he is doing. Those are legitimate questions for parliamentarians to ask. But at least we have a system in which it is clear who is to decide what at each point.
It is very foolish to run down the importance of management, as hon. Members did time and again and as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) has just done. The truth is that the weaknesses of the health service have not been on the whole clinical weaknesses. Most of us would agree that, as a nation, we are fairly lucky in our doctors and nurses and in the standard of medical care as a whole.
But one knows only too well that the weaknesses come from the way in which the whole system is organised, from the waste of resources and the failure to relate people and bodies in an effective framework. As a result, we have all the problems which are only too familiar. Far too many people spend far too long waiting for operations. There is a slack-ness in the way in which the scarce resources have been used.
The importance of the managerial framework put forward by my right hon. Friend represents a serious attempt to overcome those difficulties. As the dreaded grey book makes clear, the object of this management is simply to make sure that better health care is provided. The stress on management is exactly right. The managerial framework is certainly direct in the sense that accountability is clearly expressed at all points, but it is also very subtle framework very much tailor-made to the problems with which it is concerned.
Some hon. Members of the Opposition kept making the point in Committee that it was a business concept that was applied to this sacred thing called health. It is not just a typical business blueprint. It certainly bears some things in common with the sort of McKinsey pattern

that is becoming familiar, but these consensus committees have come up with something which is definitely tailor-made to the problems that we have to face. The essence of this is that instead of having a kind of chief-executive-type hierarchy with a formal, family-tree chain of command, one has a rotating system where people with specialist skills are the people who will be in the strongest position to influence decisions. Surely that is what we should be looking for.
I do not know how this scheme will work out. No doubt there will be many changes needed in the pattern put forward, particularly in the organisational blueprint. There will be a great deal of trial and error. But as a whole the scheme represents one of the bravest, most logical and rigorous approaches to public administration that we have seen for a very long time.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. George Wallace: I enjoyed very much the speech by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford). I do not intend to follow him because I am convinced that he is following me and his speech was in the best traditions of the Norwich Socialist movement. Coming from Norwich, that is a compliment. However, I do not wish to indulge in party manoeuvres now.
My feelings about the Bill as expressed on Second Reading still remain. There is too short a period between the Royal Assent and the appointed day. Like many of us who are involved in hospital management work, I am in touch with our officers and I know the strain that is being put upon them. It is true that the health service administrative staff face the possibility of considerable change, not only in administration hut in their home lives and in uprooting of their families. That degree of uncertainty added to the further aggravation of the improved salary scales is bound to cause strain to all those principally involved. It is not only causing strain. I have found a degree of anger now being expressed about the improved salary scale issue.
There is a point which I do not understand and which is not in the Bill. It concerns the imposition of a ban on membership of the new-committees on anyone over the age of 65. To me that is utterly ridiculous because at a stroke this will


remove from the health service lay administration a considerable number of experienced people who in the early stages of the new administration could provide the value of their experience. It was said that the advice received by the Minister was that any person over the age of 65 was most unlikely to become a member of the new committees, and it is a matter of regret, therefore, that a great deal of voluntary service may be lost, although I hope that those who are lost to the health service committees will take their experience and enthusiasm to the many leagues of hospital friends who could certainly do with their help.
Inevitably the Government will get their majority tonight, and so we face a considerable change in the health service. Whether it is for good or bad remains to be seen. I have grave doubts about the Bill, but, whatever happens, I believe that at least the changes must be given a fair chance to succeed in spite of the shortcomings about which we have expressed our disagreement. I go further and say that the Minister may rest assured that those of us involved in the health service at present are doing, and will do, all in our power to make the period of transition as smooth and effective as possible in difficult circumstances. That is a responsibility which we accept in spite of our doubts about the Bill. For the sake of the health service we shall do our utmost to ensure that these changes succeed.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington: I was not a member of the Committee but I have followed the progress of the Bill with a certain amount of care, perhaps principally because of representations made to me at an early date about the Government's decision that there should normally be only one area health authority for each non-metropolitan county. Many people in Lancashire felt most strongly, and still do, that in a county as large as theirs with a population of 1·3 million there was a case for more than one area health authority so that the difficulties of the liaison committees, which might arise from the boundaries of the area health authority not corresponding exactly with the local government boundaries, could be surmounted. I do not believe that all those

who made representations about the matter to me have had their fears allayed.
There is one matter I wish to mention in the hope that the Government will perhaps keep the door open about it. A few days ago the Opposition moved an amendment which if carried would have written into the Bill the necessity for there to be one area health authority for each non-metropolitan county. The Bill allows the Minister by order to provide for more than one area health authority in special cases. I hope that if, after a time, my right hon. Friend comes to the conclusion that in a large non-metropolitan county there is a case for more than one area health authority he will not hesitate to make this administrative change.
We feel that there is a danger of the area health authority in a place like Lancashire being remote. We are, for instance, very concerned lest the area health authority based on Preston should fail to be responsive to the wishes of people, say, in my constituency to see that a small cottage hospital that has served the neighbourhood well for many years shall remain in existence. I do net wish to launch into a constituency speech but there are cases, and this is one of them, where a hospital has been built by public subscription and has a special place in the hearts of the people. I have such a hospital—a war memorial hospital—in my constituency. We seem to have a big enough battle under the present set-up to get the powers that be to acknowledge that if that hospital is to be pulled down to make way for a new road there is a case for another hospital to be built in the town.
Under the present system people's ears are all too often closed before we go to see them and they tell us that the Ministry is set upon the district hospital idea, and that it will be years before there is any possibility of us having a small cottage hospital in the town. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) said. I am convinced that it is absurd and crazy to expect people to travel five, 10 or 15 miles to visit elderly relatives in a district hospital when they are there not to receive sophisticated treatment but merely to be looked after or to convalesce.
I beg the Minister to make sure that one result of the new administrative setup is not that these area health authorities are remote and unwilling to respond to local demands. I hope that he will make sure that simply because the authorities have to look after a large area they do not forget that they are not just administrators, that sometimes money is not everything and that there is sometimes a case for what might superficially be less than the ideal administrative solution because it meets the overwhelming needs of a particular locality.
I have no further contribution to make to the debate and I apologise for intervening when I was not a member of the Committee. The Bill might appear to be a very technical Bill but it has been followed closely in many divisions and I am glad to have been able to make a small contribution.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I intervene briefly because I want to emphasise what still remains to me a serious defect in the Bill. It attempts to deal with the problems of the health service of the past and not of the present or the future. My deep regret is that it lacks the flexibility to enable changes to be made of the kind that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) envisaged. The country faces immense and rapid social changes. Our health service must adapt itself to meet them. Half the major problems confronting the health service today are social problems intimately connected with the communities from which they flow.
I could not disagree more with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) that the democratic processes do not fit the problems of treatment and prevention. Indeed, without a modern interpretation of democratic involvement, we have no hope of dealing with the major issues of prevention of ill health and the development of high standards of healthy living in this country, as the World Health Organisation and other bodies have seen it.
I do not believe that we can achieve that object unless we can now, as we are reorganising local government, find a new link with the living community for which the health service is intended to provide.

It is a living thing, and we are dealing with people—the awkward, difficult human beings that we all are. We shall find it more and more necessary to amend the provisions of the health service. We all share great pride in establishing it, and we all recognise how much help it has brought to the community, but we must recognise also the need to change it, and to change it in flexible ways that will enable us to keep a closer relation with the community which it serves. The Bill does not do that. Indeed, it fastens on us a new rigidity, in some respects greater rigidity than in the past, and that I deeply regret.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I thought that the most distinguished contribution that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) made in Committee was not so much in his speeches—though I do not doubt that they were valuable—as in the fact that he listened to the debate and was prepared to absorb the arguments on both sides. He wanted to hear, and he wanted to form an opinion. This was a good example, not only to the Front Bench but to those on the back benches. But today he searched his mind for hyperbole and found the wrong word when he described the Bill as a "disaster". I cannot agree. It is undoubtedly a considerable step forward from the revolution that was started 25 years ago. It is a positive step forward, and I do not think that any hon. Member on either side of the House believes that it is not.
Perhaps the Opposition are telling the House and the country that they are not satisfied in all respects and feel strongly about certain aspects. To my mind, the Bill is not a curate's egg. It is an egg, but very good in many parts. The real test of the egg is how it will be cooked—and the chief cook, whether we like it or not, is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Department.
The management structure has been devised to bring together all three sides in the National Health Service. But it is then a question of interpretation. Shall we have a purely bureaucratic interpretation or a management consultant's interpretation? Or shall we have the type of feeling and understanding of the patient's needs of my hon. Friend the Member for


Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), a practitioner in the health service who has given many distinguished years of service? Shall we have his kind of understanding of what the public are seeking and wanting?
My right hon. Friend has said, practically every time he has spoken on the subject, about which he feels so strongly, that while he has been looking for a better management structure he has never forgotten that he wants a better and more sensitive service. That was the phrase which he used in the White Paper, and he used it again today. We must all agree with him on that.
The National Health Service is an enormous industry, employing many people. Throughout that industry, from the senior medical administrators, the chairmen of the regional health authorities, area health authorities, district councils, community health councils right the way down through the service, we must see that we do not lose sight of the fact that it is something much more than a management structure. It is a service sensitive to the public.
In a criticism of the Bill published very early on, Draper and Smart spoke about a good management tenet, that
the giving and sharing of information is an essential step in the process of participation.
"Participation" is a favourite word today. The health service must be one in which the consumer, the patient, feels that he is participating, making a contribution towards a service that he may one day want to serve him.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will examine the question of communication and what is to be done about it at regional or area level. Not enough public relations services are provided in the various tiers of the structure of management. It has been represented to me that it is not enough to have the professional services of hired men only at the regional level to provide the service of communication. It is sometimes very important to give the right communication at area or district level. The community health councils are a big step in the right direction, but we must be sure that there is a system of much closer communication with the public through more professional public relation services

all the way down the line. It will mean having more people than just at the regional or area level, because at that level the public relations office could well be regarded as an office of the Secretary of State rather than of the health authority.
With that brief thought, I commend the Bill to the House, because I believe that it is good in many parts.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: In the two minutes available to me I want to comment on the remarkable paradox that a Bill for reorganising the health service should have so many symptoms of sickness and be incubating what might be a virulent disease which could ruin the service. Having studied the Bill in detail, I am encouraged in that attitude by the almost unanimous opposition to the Bill of lay people who are interested in the service and contribute to its well-being.
I am tempted to follow the remarkable and exciting contribution of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) on the preventive aspects, which must be stressed more and more, but there is one other matter that I should like the Secretary of State to consider. It is part and parcel of all legislation emanating from the present Government to give more and more power to faceless bureaucrats instead of extending it to ordinary people.
It is nonsense to say that the health service has nothing to do with democracy. Without a democracy it would never have been launched. Many Conservative Members took advantage of that democracy to try to prevent it from being born. In our society people are being driven out to the periphery, and bureaucrats are controlling from the centre. The health service is a fantastic service which I believe the British people want to see democratised even more. Given the opportunity, they would have made it an even better service than it has been up to now.
If the great vision of Aneurin Bevan, the author of the idea, without whom it would never have been launched, could have been continued in the 13 years of Tory Government, we should not be having this debate. It is regrettable that


the Tories have not learnt from their errors and are still not prepared to trust ordinary people to run important matters affecting the lives of them all.
That is my fundamental criticism of the Bill. It tends to prevent ordinary people from having opportunities to make their contribution towards implementing the most civilised and greatest piece of legislation the world has ever seen.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: It is a pity that the Third Reading debate on a major Bill of this character must be reduced to one and a half hours. We are fortunate that so many hon. Members have been able to take part. Apart from paying tribute to the contributions of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I pay tribute to the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), who gave the Secretary of State cause for serious concern.
The Bill creates the biggest shake up in the National Health Service since the service was established. It is two Bills in one. The Welsh reorganisation is not taking the same form as reorganisation in England. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) commented on the attendance of the Secretary of State for Social Services in Committee, he should have counted his blessings. The Secretary of State for Social Services has no more to do with the health services in Wales than has the Sultan of Brunei. It is not his concern. The Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for our reorganisation. It is disgraceful that he did not elect to serve on the Committee stage and did not honour us with his presence on Report, until we were going to the Missing Persons Bureau to see whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was still alive. Now he elects not to answer the Third Reading debate. It is discourteous to Welsh Members and to Wales.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that he and he alone carries responsibility in the Cabinet for the health service in Wales, but he adopts the aloof arrogance that the health service is not his concern. His attitude will be resented from North Wales to South Wales. He is not bearing the responsibility that he should. The Secretary of

State for Health and Social Services also has the support of a junior Minister, but he does not run away from his responsibilities.
The Bill is a tale of missed opportunity. It is a foolish mistake. The Government look back to the 1940s instead of interpreting the mood of the 1970s. No one regretted the non-elected representative character of the health service more than did Nye Bevan, but his options were different from those that face this Government. He was faced with the option of either nominated committees or nothing. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), who was in full cry against our creating the National Health Service, supported the medical profession in its antagonism. The right hon. Gentleman has become a piece of history in this place—as I am rapidly becoming. He and I were here and voted in different lobbies when the National Health Service was created.
The Government had the chance of a lifetime to bring the National Health Service into line with the mood of the 1970s. They are greatly privileged people. Everyone knew that whoever won the last General Election would have the opportunity to restructure the NHS after 25 years. The long waiting lists for hospitals, inadequate facilities in hospitals, particularly in those for the long-term mentally sick, queue-jumping in the private sector and a host of other accumulated problems cry out for urgent attention, and the Bill does exactly nothing to solve those problems. It ignores them. The Government have missed the bus. In fact, they have gone in the wrong direction. Instead of democratising the health service they are creating an even stiffer, tougher, bureaucratic régime.
The trouble is that the Government do not like public control over public funds. They have shown this in the Water Bill and in other measures that they have introduced. The Bill creates a National Health Service based on remote control. The Secretary of State is the great "I am". Sometimes in chapel we sing the hymn "Jehovah, great I am". That is the philosophy of the Secretary of State for the Social Services and of the Secretary of State for Wales. All power is to be vested in the Secretary


of State for Social Services. Every district committee, every area health authority and every regional health authority in England will have its mandate from the Secretary of State. The line is clear. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Because he controls the purse strings, these authorities are his puppets. Public opinion can say what it likes, but it is what the Secretary of State wants that these authorities will do and recommend. Even the community health councils, the supposed watchdogs for the consumers, lack any real independence. They, too, are dependent on the Secretary of State. They start life with false teeth; they have no bite. The Minister has made sure that he is the one who will control them.
The Bill is typical of Tory philosophy—"Keep the people in their proper place, we know what is best for them and we will tell them what is good for them." That is what the Government are practising.
As for the cost—and the reorganisation creates a structure similar to that of the Armed Services of the Crown with the Secretary of State as commander-in-chief and everyone below jumping to his orders—it will come out of the money that should have been spent on improved facilities.
We shall vote against the measure. We do not like its cumbrous, costly structure. We resent this system of remote control. It is the Government's day today, but our day will come, and we shall have our chance to rectify this monumental blunder.

5.10 p.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): May I first deal with the criticism made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I remind him that my right hon. and learned Friend spoke on Second Reading and also in the Welsh Grand Committee.

Mr. George Thomas: Not on this Bill.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: My right hon. and learned Friend spoke on health service reorganisation.
I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he was Secretary of State

for Wales he gave his Minister of State responsibility for health and hospitals. If he will allow me to say so, that was made clear to all who heard his speech today. As to the relevance of the Sultan of Brunei, the right hon. Gentleman could tell us all a great deal more about that great country than we could tell him.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton)—a former Minister of Health—gave us a great speech today. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales accept the principle of the community hospital in which general practitioners might remain responsible for the care of those of their patients who do not require the more specialist facilities of the district general hospital. They are preparing advice to health authorities on the rôle of such community hospitals.
My right hon. Friend raised other points, as did hon. Members on both sides of the House. As the time available to me is short, my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend will write to them on the points they raised.
The debates on the Bill have shown that we all want a unified service which can deal comprehensively with patients' needs wherever they arise, without having to overcome the difficulties inherent in a compartmentalised administration. We all want a system in which preventive medicine and curative treatment—whether in the community or in the hospital—can be seen as complementary parts of the same service.
We would all be very happy if there were a practicable way of uniting even more widely, to bring the health service and the social services under one administration as well. But both sides of the House recognise that this is not at present possible. I think the House is satisfied that the arrangements we propose for very close collaboration between the two services are the best that can be devised at present and will at any rate represent a worthwhile step forward.
We all want a health service through which patients may be treated quickly and effectively in an efficient and humane way; and we all want to ensure that at the same time the service is sensitive and fully responsive to local needs. In all


our aims we are, therefore, at one. Where we differ—and I do not underestimate the importance of that difference—is in whether these aims are best served by constituting bodies in which one tries to combine the responsibilities for representation and for providing an effective service; or whether it is better to recognise and provide for each of these functions in its own right.
The Government are convinced that to mix the two functions within the regional and area health authorities would lead only to confusion of rôles and to a poorer service. The needs of the communities are best represented through the community health councils, which the Government believe is the best way of giving to the patient, for the first time, a direct channel of influence on the running and planning of the service.
During the passage of the Bill we have readily agreed to changes which have shown our determination that community health councils shall be strong and effective, and we are satisfied that they will be a force to be reckoned with.
I cannot in the time available sufficciently deal with the criticism of the decision not to have a regional health authority in Wales. As I have said

before, the set-up in England, with 90 area health authorities, is very different from the requirements in Wales, where there are eight area health authorities.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: rose—

Mr. Gibson-Watt: No, I shall not give way.
I am the first to agree that the removal of the Welsh Hospital Board will mean that the Welsh Office and its Ministers will be more closely connected with the National Health Service and even more directly responsible to Parliament for its outside organisation.

Mr. Morgan: rose—

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The view put forward by the present Chairman of the Welsh Hospital Board—

It being one and a half hours after proceedings on the Third Reading of the Bill had been entered upon, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to the order of the House this day.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 251.

Division No. 164.]
AYES
[5.15 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Channon, Paul
Fortescue, Tim


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chapman, Sydney
Foster, Sir John


Astor, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fowler, Norman


Atkins, Humphrey
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fox, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Churchill, W. S.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gibson-Watt, David


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cockeram, Eric
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Goodhart, Philip


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Coombs, Derek
Gorst, John


Bell, Ronald
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Gower, Raymond


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cormack, Patrick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Benyon, W.
Costain, A. P.
Gray, Hamish


Biffen, John
Crouch, David
Green, Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Blaker, Peter
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Grylls, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S. W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Gurden, Harold


Body, Richard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Dean, Paul
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bowden, Andrew
Dixon, Piers
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bray, Ronald
Drazyson, G. B.
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dykes, Hugh
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hastings, Stephen


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Emery, Peter
Havers, Michael


Buck, Antony
Eyre, Reginald
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fell, Anthony
Heseltine, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hicks, Robert


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fidler, Michael
Higgins, Terence L.


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hiley, Joseph




Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott, Nicholas


Hill, S. James A. (South'pton, Test)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Holland, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Holt, Miss Mary
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Shersby, Michael


Hordern, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Simeons, Charles


Hornby, Richard
Moate, Roger
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Money, Ernie
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Soref, Harold


Howell, David (Guildford)
Monro, Hector
Speed, Keith


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Spence, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
More, Jasper
Sproat, Iain


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stanbrook, Ivor


James, David
Mudd, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Murton, Oscar
Stokes, John


Jessel, Toby
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sutcliffe, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Neave, Airey
Tapsell, Peter


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jopling, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nott, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Norman


Kershaw, Anthony
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Temple, John M.


Kimball, Marcus
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Kirk, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kitson, Timothy
Percival, Ian
Tilney, John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Trew, Peter


Knox, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tugendhat, Christopher


Lamont, Norman
Pink, R. Bonner
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Lane, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
van Straubenzae, W. R.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Le Marchant, Spencer
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Waddington, David


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walters, Dennis


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Raison, Timothy
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Loveridge, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


MacArthur, Ian
Redmond, Robert
Wilkinson, John


McCrindle, R. A.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Winterton, Nicholas


McLaren, Martin
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McMaster Stanley
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodnutt, Mark


Maddan, Martin
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus


Madel, David
Ridsdale. Julian
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Younger, Hn. George


Marten, Neil
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Mather, Carol
Rost, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maude, Angus
Royle, Anthony
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Maudling, Rt. Hn Reginald
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Mawby, Ray
St. John-Stevas, Norman





NOES


Abse, Leo
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dempsey, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Doig, Peter


Allen, Scholefield
Campbell. I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dormand, J. D.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cant, R. B.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Carmichael, Neil
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Ashley, Jack
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Driberg, Tom


Ashton, Joe
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Duffy, A. E. P


Atkinson, Norman
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunnett, Jack


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Eadie, Alex


Barnes, Michael
Concannon, J. D.
Edelman, Maurice


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Baxter, William
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Ellis, Tom


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Crawshaw, Richard
English, Michael


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Evans, Fred


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Ewing, Henry


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tam
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davidson, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Booth, Albert
Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ford, Ben


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Forrester, John


Bradley, Tom
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Deakins, Eric
Freeson, Reginald


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Galpern, Sir Myer


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Delargy, Hugh
Garrett, W. E.


Buchan, Norman
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Gilbert, Dr. John




Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Golding, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Gourlay, Harry
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Loughlin, Charles
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n &amp; R'dnor)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rose, Paul B.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McCartney Hugh
Rowlands, Ted


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McElhone, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hamling, William
Machin, George
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hardy, Peter
Mackie, John
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Harper, Joseph
Mackintosh, John P.
Sillars, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Skinner, Dennis


Hattersley, Roy
McNamara, o. Kevin
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marquand, David
Stallard, A. W.


Hilton, W. S.
Mayhew, Christopher
Steel, David


Horam, John
Meacher, Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mikardo, Ian
Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Millan, Bruce
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Milne, Edward
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Swain, Thomas


Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)


Irvine, Rt. Kn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Janner, Greville
Morris, Alfred (Withenshawe)
Tinn, James


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn John (Aberavon)
Tope, Graham


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Moyle, Roland
Torney, Tom


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Tuck, Raphael


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Murray, Ronald King
Varley, Eric G.


John, Brynmor
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Edwin




 Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wallace, George


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, David


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Oram, Bert
Weitzman, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orbach, Maurice
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Orme, Stanley
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Oswald, Thomas
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Judd, Frank
Padley, Walter
Whitlock, William


Kaufman, Gerald
Paget, R. T.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kerr, Russell
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Kinnock, Nell
Pardoe, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lambie, David
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lamborn, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lamond, James
Perry, Ernest G.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Latham, Arthur
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Woof, Robert


Lawson, George
Price, William (Rugby)



Leadbitter, Ted
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Radice, Giles
Mr. Michael Cocks and


Leonard, Dick
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Leslor, Miss Joan
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Question accordingly agreed to.


Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 56

ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

5.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): I beg to move Amendment No. 79, in page 31, line 35, at end insert:
'(d) paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the said Act of 1968 (children's panel advisory committees):'.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 80.

Mr. Monro: These amendments are drafting amendments providing an additional exemption to Clause 56(8). Amendment No. 79 retains the children's panel advisory committees and Amendment No. 80 retains the provisions of Section 9 of the Superannuation Act 1972, so that one can continue the formation of joint committees on teachers' superannuation.

Mr. William Ross: How is it that we need an amendment to preserve the children's panels? Unless some change is made in the Bill, surely those panels will remain. Now we are told that this is purely a matter of drafting. I regard it as much more than that if we now have to include a provision in order to save the children's panels.

Mr. Monro: There is a need for the children's panels to be patently independent of the local authorities, yet not totally separated from them, in view of the local authorities' financial responsibility. This balance is achieved within the children's panels by having three members appointed by the Secretary of State and two by the local authority. This is not the kind of committee that can be integrated into the other committees of a regional council.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 80, in page 31, line 38, at end insert:
'(e) section 9 of the said Act of 1972 (superannuation of teachers).'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 60

DISABILITY FOR VOTING ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IN CONTRACTS, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 81, in page 34, line 14, leave out from 'authority' to 'and' in line 19.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 62

STANDING ORDERS, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 82, in page 34. line 39, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 63

APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF PART V TO POLICE AUTHORITIES AND JOINT POLICE COMMITTEES

5.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move Amendment No. 326, in page 35, line 7, at end insert 'or a district council'.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 327.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These are drafting amendments. Clause 63 provides that a police authority may not delegate any of its functions to any other police authority, but it would not have prevented a police authority from delegating functions to a district authority or a police committee from delegating to a police authority or a district authority. These defects in the Bill have only recently come to light.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 327, in page 35, line 19, after 'committee', insert:
'or a police authority or district council'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 64

APPOINTMENT OF STAFF

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move Amendment No. 83, in page 35, line 34, at end insert:
'(3) Where an action has been brought against an officer of a local authority in respect of an act done by him in the execution or purported execution of any enactment and the circumstances are such that he is not legally entitled to require the authority to indemnify him, the authority may nevertheless indemnify him against the whole or a part of any damages or expenses which he may have been ordered to pay or may have incurred if they are satisfied that he honestly believed that the act complained of was within the scope of his employment and that his duty under the enactment required or entitled him to do it'.
In Committee, I undertook, when we considered an amendment to Clause 56 moved by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), to table an amendment on the lines of Section 103(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 to afford protection to an officer of a local authority acting in good faith but beyond the proper scope of his duty.
That section contains two parts, the first protecting an officer against any consequences of carrying out an action on behalf of the authority in the event of proceedings being taken against him personally. This is regarded as unnecessary in view of the general arrangements for delegation in Clause 56. The omission of the second part of that section was not intentional; it was not desired to remove an authority's power to grant protection for an officer who might, in good faith, overstep the bounds of his delegated authority. The amendment is brought forward in the light of that undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66

SECURITY TO BE TAKEN IN RELATION TO OFFICERS

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 84, in page 36, line 37, leave out
'the faithful execution of his office and for'.
The amendment is designed to overcome difficulties which have been brought to our notice by the local authority

associations and which are being experienced by the finance officers of local authorities when attempting to take out insurance cover for officers who might have to handle cash and so on. I understand that insurance companies have been refusing to give cover for the phrase "the faithful execution of office", because they do not regard this as an insurable risk. There is, therefore, no point in retaining the words in the statute.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 81

CONTRACTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. William Baxter: I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 42, line 11, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 17 and insert:
'require that notice of the intention of the authority to enter into the contract shall be published and that tenders be invited from all reputable persons or firms willing to tender, and regulate the manner in which such notice shall be given and tenders invited, but may authorise the authority to exempt any contract from such provision when the authority resolve in a public meeting for special reasons stated in public that such exemption is justified'.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Baxter: I am gratified at the acclamation that the calling of my name seems to have aroused in the House. It is good to be back, especially when the weather is not as good as it was yesterday.
Nothing is more important in this Bill than to try to devise ways and means of ensuring that, when contracts are entered into, they are seen to be just, fair and equitable. One thing that I regret about the clause as it stands is that its phraseology and its intent are not unlike those in the 1929 Local Government Act. We all know from recent incidents and cases how that has affected the fabric of local government, and has even percolated into the heart of Government in this Parliament. There is therefore a need for some safeguard, and the amendment seeks to provide it.
The amendment is simple and much more applicable than the provision proposed by the Government. It would give an instruction to the local authorities to see that all their contracts were given to bona fide firms or individuals supplying the multifarious goods or services required, and to see that all people of good standing in business were given a fair


chance to tender for any contract which might be available. No one, I make bold to say, can dispute the correctness of that. But what we have found in the past, and will find in the future if Clause 81 remains unchanged, is that, with selective tendering, shady practice, as it could be called, does occur. I need only mention the Poulson case. From reading the Sunday Times one sees clearly that when a person is nominated for a contract it can give rise to great irregularities.
I believe that the lowering of the standards in local and national government stems from the time when it became the accepted fashion in local government administration to select firms and individuals to carry out contractual work. My experience leads me without doubt to that conclusion. So it behoves all of us to realise the picture as we have seen it and to try and draw reasonable and sensible conclusions from our experience.
This is why I endeavour in my amendment to have open government as such, so that each person or firm will have the same rights and opportunity to tender for the goods and services of the local authorities. If perchance there should be an occasion, as could well happen, when it is necessary to nominate a contractor or firm to carry out special work, the reasons for so doing should be made abundantly clear in a public meeting of the local authority so that the Press can adequately report the reasons to the public at large. Again I would challenge any hon. Member to question the correctness and wisdom of such action.
Because of the size and nature of the work they will be carrying out, the new local authorities will be issuing contracts worth millions of pounds, and in order to make it abundantly clear, and be seen to make it abundantly clear, to the public at large that no underhand work is involved, it is necessary to alter Clause 81.
We all know that the temptations are great and varied. This implies, to my mind at least, that the possibilities of irregularities creeping in could be very evident and could become rampant and be difficult for members and officials of local authorities to resist. Looking at

the past problems of graft, there may not be many who can say that it is not extensive. We have all been astonished and dismayed by what has been revealed within the last week or so—that it has become accepted practice in some local authorities to take money to further the interest of a firm or individual. If this became accepted as good practice, the very fabric of our nation could be undermined. This terrible cancer of graft and corruption could destroy the very nation we are proud to serve.
I am not offering a solution for all the problems which confront us, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that methods must be found to safeguard not only the individuals on local authorities who have been, are and will be incorruptible, but those people, perhaps more than we know, who fall to temptation.
Yesterday, I sought to introduce new Clause 4—Commissioner for Local Authority Investigation—but it was not selected. I sought to introduce it because it is interwoven with this whole question. Anyone who has had any experience of local and parliamentary government must know that many people from time to time come to one telling of certain irregularities that they know or have heard about. I have had that experience. A previous Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the Labour Government knows the source from which that information came, but there was nothing we could do about it. Despite his exalted position then as Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and despite my own efforts as what I have always been and am likely to remain, a humble back bencher, nothing could be done, notwithstanding the magnitude of the irregularities which were reported to us.

Mr. George Lawson: My hon. Friend described himself as a "humble" back bencher. Surely he does not want us to accept that this is what he thinks of himself.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that this is relevant to the amendment.

Mr. Baxter: If the virtue of humility should rest upon the shoulders of my hon. Friends it would do them a power of good. The egotistical nature of hon. Members often appals me. Since I have


been here, the further they have risen in this House to positions of responsibility, the more disturbed I have been to see their action.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Here endeth the lesson.

Mr. Baxter: Be that as it may. This is a very serious question. We are discussing the reorganisation of local government, but the Bill is only redrawing boundaries and moving people into one area or another. We are not fundamentally changing local government but are merely making it larger and not so local. My amendment departs fundamentally from past practice and would bring to the great mass of the people open contracting and open government which would be at least some safeguard. although small, against temptation. That is the simple fact.
It is with the greatest degree of sorrow that I move the amendment. It was with great worry and consternation that I sought to add new Clause 4 to the Bill. It is my sincere belief that if we do not add such a provision as I suggest, we may see something that no one in their sober senses or on the basis of their Christian faith would want to have in this country—destruction by the rot of graft and deceit.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The hon. Member for West Stirlineshire (Mr. Baxter) raised a very important matter and dealt with it excellently. However I wish merely to ask two brief questions about the amendment.
It appears that the hon. Gentleman proposes that the principle of selective tendering should be dispensed with unless there is a special reason for retaining it. But what are the implications for the present selective tendering system and the obligations that we have accepted in the Common Market? It has been made clear to us under a directive of the Common Market that contracts involving sums above a certain figure have to be advertised in the digests or bulletins of the European Communities and that all contacting firms in the Community must be given an opportunity to tender.
Will it be possible for a local authority or public body in Britain to carry on with the system of selective tendering for a large contract, bat, in view of our

obligation under Common Market rules to ensure that contracts are advertised, that contracting firms throughout the rest of the Community are given a chance to tender? It would be utterly unacceptable if a situation arose in which a public body or a town, county or regional council in Britain said that it was specifying three firms in Great Britain from which it was prepared to consider tenders when the whole range of firms in the other countries of the Common Market were being given an opportunity to tender.
On this amendment, will it be possible to continue with selective tendering in view of this obligation which requires contracts to be advertised throughout the Common Market?
My second question is whether anything can be done about the growing practice in public corporations and in some councils to accept tenders from firms which at the time may be the lowest tenders and accepted as such and then, as often happens, the successful firms say that they have found difficulties of which they were not aware, such as subsidence or faulty ground, and they claim another £200,000 or £300,000. In my own experience as a councillor I have known of such cases. It is always very unfair to those firms which may have submitted larger tenders in the full knowledge that this might happen.
When a fixed-price contract or a contract with escalation is arrived at, if there is a variation in terms because of factors which become clear to the contractor after the job has started, it is very important that there should be some procedure whereby each additional sum has to be authorised by a central body.
In major contracts, by and large it is the case that if there is an additional borrowing requirement the approval of the Secretary of State is necessary. However, in contracts for hospital building let by public bodies or in contracts for schools let by local authorities there is a practice where a contractor can put in a tender which is the lowest one at the time and, having got it, he reports certain adverse factors to the body ordering the contract pointing out that an additional sum is required because he has discovered that the job will be more difficult than was originally thought. Is it possible for any variations


in contracts to be approved by a central body in all cases?
I hope that I shall receive answers to those two questions.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: When we consider an amendment of this kind, we can adopt one of two courses. We can either ignore it or deal with it.
I do not believe that the Opposition should allow to go unchallenged some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter). I do not presume to speak on behalf of the many hundreds of Labour councillors in Scotland, but I resent my hon. Friend's soft approach when he uses such expressions as
…the terrible cancer of graft and corruption.
A phrase of that kind is always the headline. However, the small print which follows is:
Of course, it may apply only to a few.
I object to the use of this technique. Whether we like it or not, its general message is a smear on the overwhelming majority of people in public life who are as straight as my hon. Friend claims to be.
We have to face these matters and to look at existing local authority procedures when considering whether this amendment is appropriate or whether attention should be drawn in other ways to the provisions already in the clause which seem to place responsibility fairly and squarely on local authorities to evolve their own standing orders to safeguard the public interest and the interests of all commercial firms which deal with local authorities.
I appreciate that this is a sensitive subject. However, the Opposition would be failing in their duty if they did not speak up on behalf of the overwhelming majority of Labour councillors up and down the country who do a very good job in difficult circumstances where it is the easiest thing in the world to take away their character and reputation quite unjustifiably and without any evidence.
I have always reacted strongly to smear tactics of the kind used by too many people who ought to know better, especially when they are themselves in business. My understanding of local

authorities is that almost every commodity from a bar of soap to a contract for a motorway or express way running into millions of pounds is advertised and tenders are invited. I am not selling anything to a local authoritly, but my understanding is that almost every contract is advertised somewhere in a journal of which anyone interested in putting in a tender is aware when it is being let.

Mr. Russell Johnston: indicated dissent—

Mr. Brown: Apparently the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) disagrees. I presume that any information to the contrary that he has comes as a result of his experience of the Royal Commission—

Mr. Johnston: It is not a matter of my experience on the Royal Commission. I have experience of my own local authority. When a road is to be constructed, the authority limits tenders according to the selective system referred to by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter). It means that certain firms do not get an opportunity to tender. That is a fact of life.

Mr. Brown: I was about to come to the system of selective tendering, which is slightly different. Although it is common practice in general terms for goods and services required by a local authority, on the construction side there are well-known and special difficulties. It may be that hon. Members thought that I was discussing construction contracts, which seem to cause most of the trouble. However in general, to the best of my knowledge all the goods and services requirements of local authorities are advertised, be they for fish, school meals or anything else. That is not to say that the system is perfect and cannot be improved. But on the face of it, apparently it works reasonably well.
Where is this area in which, according to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire, there is this graft and corruption? These are serious allegations to make. I served for 10 years on a local authority and for three years as a magistrate at a time when there were, perhaps, more licences granted in the city of Glasgow, for obvious reasons, than in any other period. I resented people who made the remark, "They are all at it."

Mr. Baxter: You have said some rather harsh words. I will not go into detail on them but if my new Clause 4 had your support, you did not append your name to it. One of the problems is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address the Chair.

Mr. Baxter: If my hon. Friend had supported that clause he would have noticed that one of the points which I put down was that the Commissioner should be under no legal or other obligation to divulge the name of the informant. This, in my opinion, is the key to the solution of the problem.

Mr. Brown: I am aware of the fact that we are not discussing new Clause 4 and that you will rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, if I speak on it. My hon. Friend did not ask any member of the Committee to promote this on his behalf. It appears that he enjoys coming here in the guise of being discriminated against because you, Mr. Speaker, did not select his new clause.

Mr. Baxter: That remark was uncalled for and my hon. Friend should be asked to withdraw. He has no knowledge of my point of view about you not selecting my new clause, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We had better leave new Clause 4 where it is and proceed with this amendment.

Mr. Brown: It so happens that I do not agree with a word of new Clause 4.
I wish to refer to the more sensitive area of the building and construction industry. This involves enormous sums of money with contracts running into millions of pounds. It is a difficult area and there are some firms which seem to do well.
There is tremendous responsibility on the officials in a department because there are specialist areas. I may think that the firms of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire could build anything but I would probably be wrong. When it comes to specialist work, such as roads or bridges or similar projects, I am not in a position as a layman to know, nor am I expected to know, the technicalities involved. The attack, if it is an attack, by my hon. Friend the Member

for West Stirlingshire is on the officials and on the advice which they give. Much must depend on them, as well as on the Scottish Office, since most big contracts require the approval of the Scottish Office. No doubt the Minister can answer that point.
The advice is given with the best intentions, given that the officials are acting in the interest of their clients, namely the public. If we disbelieve that, and if it is suggested that the officials are deliberately giving wrong information, or presenting information in such a way, because of their technical knowledge and contacts, that they are misleading elected representatives, then that is a serious charge. This is the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire should direct his attention.
Perhaps I am naive, but to work on the assumption that all officials are dishonest and that a system has to be evolved to catch them out is wrong. I prefer to work on the assumption that people are basically honest. It is only when I am let down that I look around to see where, as a result of my experience, I can make some improvement.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is possible that advantage could be given to the established firm, not for anything to do with corruption but simply because a restricted list has to be produced and this gives an in-built advantage to the established firm, thus creating a disadvantage for someone trying to get in?

6 p.m.

Mr. Brown: I agree. There are two reasons for that. Sometimes officials in local authorities are grossly underpaid in relation to the people with whom they are dealing outside. This is something which we in public life have never faced up to. Therefore some officials, perhaps not as good as their opposite numbers outside, because of the resources factor, tend to play safe and to go for the firm that has earned a reputation, whatever that might be, for reliable work in a specialised area. It is an understandable approach. I do not say that it is right, but it happens.
Consequently there is the impression that some of the smaller firms, who might even be better and well able to cope with the work, are excluded. I have sat on


local authority committees—and in Glasgow we are dealing with large housing contracts—where, quite rightly, the City Architect would say, "Firms X, Y and Z have far too much work on their plate. I recommend that you should go for firms, A. B and C." Is that right or wrong? Is that using undue influence? These are the facts of life which people making the decisions have to face.
Of course, there are regular requests from firms asking to be put on a list, to be considered for local authority work. I am challenging not just my hon. Friend for West Stirlingshire, but any hon. Member who thinks that he might have a bright idea about how easy it is to overcome some of the difficulties confronting people in local government, given the assumption that they are basically honest.

Dr. Miller: Would my hon. Friend also accept that since the construction industry heads the list of failures from a Scottish and a national point of view it is the duty of the official to try to make an assessment on this point when he advises the council?

Mr. Brown: There is an involved procedure under which firms have to give assurances that they have the financial responsibility and viability to fulfil all foreseeable demands likely to be brought about by mishaps that can befall a firm, in the light of some of the things that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) mentioned. Anyone who knows anything about the building industry knows that the word will go around that this and that firm is running into difficulties because of the nature of the contracts it has taken on. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) is right. These are some of the difficulties which give rise to advice from officials which on the face of it could be extremely damaging for some of the firms if it were published.
The hon. Member for West Stirling-shire should recognise, when he is asking in his amendment for all these things to be published, that there are some things which it is not fair, particularly to a firm, to make public. I could not let the amendment pass without making some comments. I do not think that it is practical. Above all I resent some of the insinuation that seems to lie behind its thinking.

Mr. J. Grimond: Although it is perfectly true that the great bulk of local councillors and their officials are dedicated men of impeccable honesty it is none the less equally true at the moment that in certain limited areas of the country some anxiety is being felt, not only about local government but about the whole relationship of government to big business. It is not unreasonable that in a Bill of this kind we should spend a minute or two considering the matter.
Certainly all government is becoming very big business as the Old Testament prophet from West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) told us. This means that there is an obligation on this House to lay down procedures and to ensure that they are workable and reasonable, even if there is a widespread feeling that nevertheless, on the whole, local government is honest. Thirdly, there is this important area which I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) mention of the position of officials in local government.
It is true that compared with many people they are much underpaid. In my constituency there are local officials dealing with some of the biggest companies in the world. This raises problems for them. There is a tendency for officials sometimes to play safe and to call in advisers. In many cases this is justified but sometimes it raises difficulties and even suspicions as to the basis on which the advisers are working.
As I understand it, Amendment No. 62 covers a narrow point. It is designed to stiffen Clause 81. Essentially it deals only with selective tendering. There are many other aspects. There is the question of granting licences and planning permissions, which can make enormous differences to fortunes. There are those matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnson) referred. This deals only with a relatively narrow band.
The clause lays down certain procedures. Selective tendering is important and the clause does not exclude it. It says that if there is to be selective tendering a case must be made out and published. It would be good for the House if we heard from the Government whether they are satisfied with their general procedures and what objection they have to this procedure.
Of course no procedure will guarantee us against dishonesty. None of the procedures here as I understand them will have any effect on such cases of dishonesty as have come to our notice. That does not exonerate us from laying down procedures and making them as wide as we can, especially at this point.
While I have great doubts about selective tendering, certainly as a general principle, I would like to hear very much from the Government whether they think that this amendment will strengthen and clarify procedures and, if they are defending selective tendering, other than in special cases which I wholly accept and which are exempted by the amendment, what are their reasons for feeling that the widest possible tendering could not be accepted?

Mr. Younger: I ought first of all to say two things about the subject of graft and corruption which the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) mentioned and which was taken up by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). There are, I feel, two things which the House would like said at this point. First, as was said yesterday, we should be very careful that in quite rightly discussing these important matters we do not inadvertently give the impression, damaging to many good and honest men and women in local government, that this is the norm, because it is not so. We should make that point clear.

Mr. Baxter: I never said that it was.

Mr. Younger: I was not suggesting that the hon. Member did say that. I ask him to believe that. I was merely saying that when we discuss these matters we should make it clear that there is a balance we ought to preserve.
The second thing I wish to say is that everyone in this House would, I am sure, at all times want to take any steps he could reasonably take to ensure that we reduce any such evils as have been outlined to their absolute minimum, and if possible eliminate them altogether. I think those two things have to be said before we start.
The solution to these wide, very important and worrying problems which the hon. Gentleman outlined in his amendment is basically to abolish the selective

tendering procedure. This is a perfectly fair point of view and I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his wide experience in these matters both personally and as a Member of Parliament, feels very strongly about it.
I should perhaps outline briefly to the House why these procedures take place and, since the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked me to do so, why I do not think that, whatever other effects it would have, the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire would in fact reduce to any appreciable extent any corruption which he may be worried about.
I think it would create major difficulties in the smooth, efficient and convenient running of local authority tendering procedures for the many large and important contracts which they undertake. It is not necessary to take long about this because the principles of the matter are quite clear. Perhaps we can just look briefly at the selective tendering procedure from two points of view—first, from the point of view of contractors who may be engaged in this type of work and who may wish to tender for such work from local authorities; and secondly, from the point of view of local authorities themselves.
As regards the position of contractors, I absolutely accept that, particularly for contractors who are trying to break into the field of local authority contract work, it can make some difficulties, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) said a few moments ago, because it is that much more difficult to break into a new field if there is selective tendering. But I think it must also be accepted that if the selective tendering procedure became very exceptional, as the hon. Gentleman would have it by his amendment—and the physical problems of the procedure he has outlined would, in my opinion, make it very exceptional indeed—then it would be found that open tendering would be very much the norm and the vast majority of contracts would be on open tender.
I suggest that contractors and people involved in these fields would find that this was a major administrative burden and a major expense for them, because they would be doing all the work of tendering and scheduling for a large number of contracts, many of which they would


have little chance of getting. I do not pretend that this is the be-all and end-all of the argument, but I suggest that one of the effects would be to create very much bigger costs and difficulties for contractors generally in trying to get into this field.

Mr. Baxter: I have a personal acquaintance with this as I am the managing director of a firm, and the fact of the matter is that no obligation rests upon a firm or its personnel to ask to tender if they do not wish to do so. If they ask for the opportunity to tender and get the schedule of quantities, be it for building or for the supply of materials, they must feel they are in a position to supply those services. So the question whether the firm would have too much work to do in filling up the schedules, and so on, does not arise.

Mr. Younger: I absolutely accept that point, but I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that if when tendering for major contracts one were doing so in company with 10 or 15 other firms, one would in the long run incur very much greater expense and achieve fewer successes than if one were tendering Against perhaps five or six other firms. I make that point as one that must be borne in mind.
Let us look for a moment at this procedure from the point of view of the local authority. I quite accept that, if the procedure suggested by the hon. Gentleman were to be a great improvement and advance and very much desired for other reasons, the administrative difficulties would presumably be set aside. We would not worry about them. But I would make the point in passing that the procedure which he is outlining here would make matters more difficult for local authorities in that they would have to go through a more cumbersome procedure and assess and evaluate a larger number of tenders, and that this would create more costs and more difficulties for them.
But the real point is that surely, from a local authority point of view, there has to be selection at some point. The only question is whether the authority selects at the tendering stage by selecting a number of firms to tender and choosing from among them, or whether in an open

tender it invites all and sundry to tender, in which case it still has to select because it does not necessarily follow, if all and sundry are invited to tender, that the lowest tender will be the one that is accepted, since there is the question not only of the lowest price but also of whether the firm has the resources and the ability to carry out the work.
Of course, there are many cases in which we all know that the firm concerned will have the resources to carry out the work, but there are also cases in which the firm might consider that it had the resources but the local authority might feel that it had not—and might be right, because there are cases, as many of us know, in which a firm tenders, feeling it can undertake the work, gets the contract and then falls down on the job because it is too big—

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Baxter: It is not unusual for firms to get a job and then fall down on it with the present method of tendering, but there is an easy way of overcoming that difficulty. There is the method of asking bona fide firms to produce a bond of fidelity showing that they are capable of carrying out the job. Secondly, there is the method of asking for the accountant's report of the financial standing of the firm. It is quite within the wit and ability of the local authority when firms have asked for an opportunity of tendering to decide whether they have the personnel to do the job. I hope the hon. Gentleman will remember that local firms, sometimes quite large firms, have certain obligations to the community as regards employing apprentices, and when the selecting is done at the present time the employment situation for local boys and girls, particularly boys, is being undermined, because inevitably the large firms which are selected for the various jobs round and about Scotland are in all probability based in England. I hope the hon. Gentleman will devote some time to that point.

Mr. Younger: What the hon. Gentleman says is, of course, true but I think he will agree that it is not only a question of whether the firm concerned is financially competent to undertake the work. There are many cases in which the local authority has to assess whether


it is technically competent. There have been plenty of cases in our experience over the past 10 to 15 years of contracts being given to firms in perfectly good faith which they have turned out not to be able to do. I am not suggesting, of course, that the hon. Gentleman is involved in anything of this sort.

Mr. Baxter: This is not a personal question at all. It is of great importance to the whole of local government in Scotland. I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the largest firm which failed in Scotland recently was a firm that had been recommended to the local authorities by his own Department in Edinburgh to undertake certain contracts. If he goes to the registrar of companies and looks at its past balance sheets he will see that it never should have got the contracts for which his own Department recommended it.

Mr. Younger: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I bow to his knowledge since he is a person who is involved in these matters. I am only trying to outline as briefly as possible some of the difficulties in what he is suggesting.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Under-Secretary sure that the Scottish Office thinking is right on the issue of capability? May I remind him of the Edinburgh Opera House contract? It will be within his recollection that the Scottish Office argued that in the case of a particular firm it did not seem at one stage to have the capability—I am referring to the design firm—to do a particuar job. If it had had the capability then, by definition, it would have been extremely fair. Surely there is an argument for giving contracts to firms which are not carrying people they need not carry at a particular time. I have doubts about the question of capability and the whole philosophy behind it.

Mr. Younger: Those are considerations which have to be taken into account. I will not comment on the particular case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because it has not been my responsibility. No doubt he could investigate that directly if he wished.
I am not suggesting that there is no sense in the amendment that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire has put before us. However, it is my duty to try to make clear why it is the Government's view that to make selective tendering rare or exceptional would not be in the best interests of either the firms involved or the local authorities.
I respect the hon. Gentleman's views that he has outlined on graft and corruption. However, I do not think that what he is suggesting would make any substantial difference to any of these problems. I do not think that the amendment would have the effect that the hon. Gentleman wishes. Indeed, it would create difficulties in the conduct of affairs when tendering for contracts.

Dr. Miller: I do not agree with the over-emphasis placed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) on graft and corruption, but I think that he has a point in asking the Under-Secretary to consider selective tendering in the light of Scottish firms compared with national firms. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will indicate that his Department is not militating in any way in favour of national firms because, as my hon. Friend said, this has an adverse effect on local employment, among other things.

Mr. Younger: It is not for me to say which firms my Department considers are good or bad. Within our many responsibilities for the Scottish economy we take into account the problems of Scottish firms and always try to do our best for them in the context of what we are doing.

Mr. Dalyell: It may be that we are polite when we do not mean it. I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he respected the views of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter). Which of my hon. Friend's views does the Scottish Office respect? Was it in the context of what he said about graft and corruption or his real knowledge of the building industry? May we get that straight?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman and I have different conceptions of what is meant when one says that one respects the views of other hon. Members. I hear many strange views expressed in this


House, with many of which I profoundly disagree.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Then the hon. Gentleman should say so.

Mr. Younger: But I respect the right of hon. Members, even those who in my view talk complete nonsense—I am not referring to anyone who has spoken in the debate—to make known their views. That is what I meant. I hope that is clear.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) to answer two direct questions. The first referred to the effect of EEC directives on these matters. The EEC system of restricted tendering, as it is called, which will become operative here on 1st July 1973, is similar to the system of selective tendering that we are now operating. It will require the advertisement of all works contracts over £415,000 in value, but the selection of those to be invited to tender will still rest with the awarding body—in this instance, the local authority.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my hon. Friend mean that public authorities in Britain will choose perhaps three firms to tender for a job and at the same time will have to publish every contract in the Journal of the European Economic Communities? Surely that is "nutty".

Mr. Younger: We are bound to advertise that a contract above a certain amount is being put out to tender. Thereafter, under the normal selective tendering procedure, a certain number of firms—not necessarily three—will be invited to tender. It is similar to our procedure. It should not present any difficulties to us.
My hon. Friend asked about circumstances changing during the course of a contract and extra finance being requested by the contractor. This can happen on any contract, not just a local authority contract. Usually contracts provide sums for contingencies to take account of unforeseen circumstances, such as difficult subsoil conditions, mentioned by one hon. Member. Such sums are not paid unless unforeseen circumstances arise. We cannot lay down hard-and-fast rules on these matters. Local authorities and other bodies must rely

on advice from their professional advisers to make sure that the original tenders are absolutely fair one with another. Thereafter, snags or difficulties which may arise must be dealt with as they occur.
I suggest that the House should not accept the amendment. I recognise that there is some public concern about the matter, but we should realise that the vast majority of work within local authorities is carried out in an upright, excellent and careful manner.

Mr. James Dempsey: I should like to refer to one point that the Under-Secretary of State did not mention. It seems that we are debating the principle not so much of selective tendering as of the nominated contractor versus the competitive contractor. This appears to be the issue under consideration.
Frankly, I am at a loss to see why we should abolish the one and not the other. Circumstances arise in which I concede that it is desirable to have a nominated contractor. But these circumstances are being generalised in many respects. In consequence, competition is slowly fading from public works programmes, especially in my part of the country.
Only a few years ago I criticised my colleagues, when they were in Government, because three colleges of education had been built and not one competitive tender was advertised for. As a matter of fact, an English firm was seconded to build those colleges. One was built in Hamilton, in the centre of Lanarkshire, where there was and is high unemployment. Yet no construction firm in Lanarkshire was given an opportunity to tender for those contracts. I thought that not only unwise but wrong, and I said so.
As a local councillor I have a great deal of experience of contracting, although I do not have the practical knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter). He is a first-class practical man on this subject and I always pay close attention to his views.
There is a tendency among some local authorities and, unfortunately, some Government Departments—I am criticising not only the Scottish Office, but other Departments—to accept nominated tenders when competition should be the order of the day.
Recently my local trades council adopted a resolution of protest at a decision by the education authority to go all out for a nominated tender by a firm in the East of Scotland, thereby denying local firms in the County of Lanarkshire the right to compete for that contract by issuing schedules of quantities and tendering in the hope that one of them might get the job. The complaint of my trades council was that my area had the second highest unemployment rate on the mainland of Scotland. We have some of the most reputable construction firms in the United Kingdom, yet not one of them was given an opportunity by the education authority to tender for a new comprehensive school. I am pleased to say that, so far, the Scottish Office has not decided this issue. At least the Scottish Office has been acquainted with the feelings of my trades council and myself about this situation.
6.30 p.m.
In the light of all the circumstances, when urgency is not the keynote on this particular school, I hope that the Minister and the Department concerned will take the wise decision that a contract of that nature, valued at about £1½ million, should go to competitive tender.
I take this opportunity of expressing that point of view because the building industry—management, employees and local trade unionists—is very much concerned with this sort of development. I recognise that there will be exceptions when nominated contracts will be regarded as wise and judicious temporary expedients. I shall not criticise the Minister when he adopts such tendering on those grounds, but it should be kept to a minimum, and should, where possible, be avoided altogether.
We are all human, and suffer from the same human feelings. We all have blue-eyed darlings. We have them inside and outside Parliament, in business and industry, and in every aspect of community life. If we did not, we should not be human. It is only fair, therefore, that we should protect individuals from some of the emotional qualities. I am not speaking of irregularities, or alleging any misdemeanour on the part of individuals, but not everyone is a saint in this life. There are also sinners.

Mr. John Smith: And those in between.

Mr. Dempsey: It is a free country. When the minister met the old tramp the bottom of whose can had fallen out when he was boiling his tea, the old tramp was indulging in an exercise of profanity. The minister said, "If one kneels down and says, 'Our Father', everything will come all right." The old tramp said, "It is all right for you, but it is every man to his own trade." We are dealing with our trade here, which is business, and it must be scrupulous business. The Under-Secretary is a man of great integrity and would stand for nothing but scrupulous business methods.
I want to influence the Minister towards the belief that nominated contracts should be kept to the bare minimum, and awarded only where unavoidable and judicious in the interests of urgency or other specialised circumstances. The general rule should be competition, to ensure that all those who pay rates and taxes should have the right to tender for a contract, hoping that they will get it, not only to maintain and extend their business but, more important, to provide work in areas of high unemployment.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to express a taste for Ministers saying exactly what they mean. We heard the Under-Secretary say clearly that he respected the views of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter). It seemed to be a comprehensive respect. I understood the Under-Secretary to say, when challenged, that much of what my hon. Friend was saying was nonsense. If the Under-Secretary respects nonsense, I invite him to say precisely what he means.
There are far too many allegations going around which bring into disrepute with very little evidence, and often with no evidence, people who work hard on councils and in public life. It is about time that a number of people were counted on this matter. It is about time that they asked precisely where the Government stand on this matter. The Scottish Office must have a view. It may be that I have misinterpreted the Minister, but we are entitled to invite him to say clearly and unequivocally what he thinks of the views expressed by my hon. Friend. This is important to many people who serve in public life very well.

Mr. Ross: I welcome back my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter). I hope that he will remain with us during the long hours of the sitting upon which we have embarked. But if my hon. Friend is to persevere only in relation to the success of one effort, and is to let every other effort go, he will not be doing himself justice. We regretted yesterday that my hon. Friend was not present, because we touched upon this subject in his absence when we dealt with the question of trying to prevent corruption by laying down certain regulations in respect of the interests of members of local authorities.
The concentration is always on the member of the local authority. But what about the firm which corrupts the individual? That is just as important. I am sorry that this gets far too little attention. There would be no corruption if there was no corruptor. From that point of view we should have welcomed the presence of my hon. Friend, who could have made a valuable contribution to the debate.
The clause deals with standing orders in respect of building contractors. May I ask the Under-Secretary wherein this departs from the present position? What is the present position? What powers has the Secretary of State in respect of contracts? What powers will he have in respect of contracts if my hon. Friend's amendment is accepted or if the clause goes through unamended? As far as I can see, we are dealing purely and simply with the standing orders of the local authority. After that it is entirely a matter for the local authority.

Mr. Baxter: Under the clause as it stands.

Mr. Ross: Under the clause as it stands and under the clause as my hon. Friend would have it amended.

Mr. Baxter: There is a fundamental difference here. As I have said, the powers of existing local authorities are much the same as those contained in the clause, but the amendment puts some obligations upon the new local authorities to do certain things which at present the old authorities are not compelled to do. In the clause they would not be compelled to do those things.

Mr. Ross: I shall come to some of those points, but as far as I can see even the powers laid down in the Bill do not rule out other standing orders, although I agree that they are not specified. It is difficult to say whether they should be compulsory. I have had quite a bit of experience of contracts, and contracts are not given purely and simply by local authorities. Certain major construction contracts in Scotland are given by the Scottish Office, for the building of major roads and such items.
I believe that selective tendering should be limited. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire might have been interested in some of the cases which were brought to my notice. I believe that selective tendering should be limited to special cases of large jobs were the work is expensive—and some of them can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. If a person or a firm has never done a job like it before—for example the building of the Erskine Bridge or the Forth Road Bridge—the question of open tendering becomes very difficult, particularly in view of what is dependent upon the work. Therefore, we have to be certain that the people who get the job have the experience and the reputation upon which confidence can be built.
In Scotland we have been most fortunate in that respect. It is not good enough merely to put into a clause that contracts must be awarded to firms of repute. Some firms of repute have suddenly gone wrong in the past, perhaps because of the tendering procedures they employed or because of their work load, or something else. Some of the contractors in Scotland for whom we have had the highest regard have been affected in this way. It may have been the unfortunate loss of their managing director, as in the case of a firm that became a national organisation and employed a considerable number of Scots in an area where employment was badly needed.
I therefore do not think that my hon. Friend would achieve what he wants, because the words "of repute" do not mean much and if they are written in they will carry their own problems with them.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree from his


experience as Secretary of State that it is not only the Erskine Bridges that are subject to selective tendering. It goes much further down the line, to smaller jobs like stretches of about a mile and a half of road. If the right hon. Gentleman is now taking the view that this should not be so and if he succeeded in influencing the Scottish Office that would represent a major change of established policy.

Mr. Ross: I do not think it is a long-established policy. It is an approved policy. I can tell the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) of things that cost a lot less than a mile and a half of road. He should remember that one mile of dual carriageway can cost £1 million. If it is a tricky bit of road it could cost a lot more than that.
In certain spheres there is a limited number of people upon whom one can depend. Although I approve of selective tendering, there can be cases where the tenders are so selective that only one of those tendering can get the job.

Mr. Dempsey: One is nominated.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should not interrupt me, because he is thinking what I have said. This has implications for those who tender as well as those who select. However, let us not give the impression that in Scotland graft is rampant and rife. I had few complaints in the six years when I was Secretary of State. There was plenty of rumours, but we should not seek to give the impression that our present local authorities and past generations of local authority men and women, whom most of us have known, are tainted in this way.
6.45 p.m.
Yesterday a man was sitting watching our proceedings. He was the convenor of the County of Ayr. He was a miner and he has been the county convenor for many years. He told me that the only time he met his wife was when he came in and she handed him his pit clothes, because he worked on the night shift at the pit. He went down the pit night after night, in spite of his onerous duties as convenor. There is a tendency to highlight what some believe is a cancerous growth of corruption, but all too often

we fail to tackle the real cause of the trouble.
More often the trouble is related to the unpleasant face of competition in the construction industry. I should like to see a survey into the extent to which public relations officers and offices of construction firms demonstrate far more competition in their generosity than the companies do in their prices. The question is how far they go and what line they use when seeking justifiably to interest people in projects. The trouble lies more within the firms. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire is in this business and he knows that I should like to see voices raised within the construction industry to try to curtail this kind of activity. The industry could do it. My hon. Friend has influence there, which I hope he will be able to use.

Mr. Baxter: I have probably raised my voice louder than most people, and I have been despised for so doing, even in today's debate. I have done so on a number of occasions. The fact remains that pressure is brought to bear upon building firms to appoint public relations officers, very often from the membership of local authorities. I have had personal experience of that. The convenor of a county told me, "You will get no contracts or schedules in this county unless you have a public relations officer, and I am prepared to be that public relations officer."

Mr. Buchan: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) agrees that some of the views being uttered tonight might be better listened to? Hon. Members have a good deal of influence and, as such, we should be prepared to disclose our financial interests if we take that view about local councils. Since the problem is being discussed by Scottish Labour Members of Parliament it would be useful to have an assurance from some of them that they will enter any disclosure of their interests totally and fully before they discuss the faults, or the alleged faults, of councillors.

Mr. Ross: If I pursued that line I should be ruled out of order, because we discussed that matter yesterday. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire was not here, that was not


my fault. The point that he made was a serious one.

Mr. Baxter: A very serious one indeed.

Mr. Ross: I deprecate this slur on all county convenors. If a person is not named, people start saying, "Was it so-and-so?" and everyone gets blamed. My hon. Friend has certain privileges in the House, and I regret that he did not go further. If he was not willing to be specific, I regret that he made the statement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) said that in awarding contracts we should show preference for locally-employed labour. I doubt whether the amendment would do that.
I was interested in the reply that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) received. When I was Secretary of State and we had a certain amount of unemployment in the North-East and elsewhere, the Scottish Agricultural Department decided to build a ship. I was informed by the Department that I had to advertise the project in the EFTA countries, and that I was tied by contract. I said that I would not do it. I can assure the House that a Scottish firm secured that contract. To put this kind of thing into standing orders and insist on open competition would tie the hands of the local authority. That is what the amendment implies. If open competition were insisted upon in this way, the results might well not be those that are desired.
In many ways I welcome the debate. I welcome the underplaying of the scare headlines about corruption in Scottish local authorities. We probably are purer than most other places, though there may be others just as pure outside Scotland.
I cannot recommend my hon. Friends to support the amendment. It is too cumbersome, and too restricting in ways where my hon. Friend would like it to widen the scope of the local authorities.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 83

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO INCUR EXPENDITURE FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES NOT OTHERWISE AUTHORISED

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 331, in page 44, line 18, [Clause 83], leave out 'lord-lieutenant' and insert:
'Provost or chaiman of Community Council'.
The amendment contains two parts. The two—the deletion and the insertion—are not necessarily exclusive.
I move the amendment to probe the correctness of having either a lord-lieutenant or a provost or chairman of a community council, or both, in the clause. The clause provides that a local authority may, from money raised from the public through rates, contribute to a fund on behalf of which a public appeal has been made
by a Lord Provost, a chairman of a regional, islands or district council, a lord-lieutenant or by a body of which any of these persons is a member.
I deal first with the question whether we should include the chairman of a community council. I believe that for local community purposes, the chairman of a community council is the appropriate person to launch an appeal for funds for a certain event.
It is in line with my thinking—although I accept from the debates yesterday that it may be out of line with the Government's thinking—that it ought to be possible for a local authority to contribute to a voluntary fund for which an appeal has been launched by the chairman of a community council. The issue is simple, and needs no further argument.
My reason for tabling the part of the amendment concerning the lord-lieutenant is that apart from the new clause, which was added after a most unsatisfactory debate in Committee—it is now Clause 203—the only mention of lord-lieutenants is in Clause 83. It is certainly the only one that I have come across.
Clause 203 does not lay down the powers, capacities or authority of the lord-lieutenant. It deals merely with appointments and functions in relation to the


new regions. As far as I can make out, Clause 83 is the only clause in which a lord-lieutenant is given any power—and that power is simply to receive moneys from the rate payers on behalf of an appeal.
Although I may want to intervene later on another amendment, the present amendment raises the question whether the lord-lieutenants of the future are appropriate persons to whom to give that power, bearing in mind their manner of selection and the fact that they may tend to be politically unrepresentative in Scotland.
I also question the definition in the last paragraph that I read out, that it could be an appeal
by a body of which any of these persons is a member".
I take it that that refers to a statutory body, for otherwise it could lead to a very odd conclusion. I have read in the Press that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has been made a deputy-lieutenant, and I am sure that we all wish to congratulate him. Does the reference to "lord-lieutenant in the clause also include a reference to his deputies? Could the hon. Member for Dumfries make a heart-rending public appeal on behalf of the Dumfries Conservative Association? I am sure that the association does not need the money, but he might be a member of it. The phrase
a body of which any of these persons is a member
could lead to peculiar results when applied to a lord-lieutenant.
I raise the matter without straying on to the question of lord-lieutenants, which we shall have an opportunity to discuss later.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I do not like the English in the last part of paragraph (c). I would prefer it to read:
a body of which any of these persons are members".
I underline the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has made. I am not quite sure how far the paragraph goes—whether it is wholly confined to statutory bodies.
I also take the opportunity of asking whether the whole of subsection (3) extends the National Mod (Scotland) Act,

which I introduced some time ago, and which enabled the current district authorities to contribute to the National Mod. It appears from the reference to contributions to charitable bodies that that power is now extended to both the new district and regional authorities.

7 p.m.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has made an important suggestion. Like him, I would take the amendment in two parts: first, whether it is right or wrong to leave out "lord-lieutenant", and secondly, whether it is right or wrong to add the chairman of a community council.
I do not think that it would be desirable to remove the right of the lord-lieutenant to be the head of an appeal for funds for a disaster or some other event. It is very much up to the discretion of local people who they think is the most suitable person, but it is very often found that the lord-lieutenant is highly suitable, in that he is not in the general run of political life or political controversy. That has happened on many occasions recently.
The hon. Gentleman's other suggestion is very good, although there would probably not be many occasions on which the chairman of a community council would be asked to be the head of an appeal. Such an appeal would probably be a fairly local occasion, although that would not necessarily always be so; on the other hand it certainly would be a good thing to add a power to include the chairman of a community council as the head of an appeal which would qualify for local authority support.
Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment I shall be glad to suggest to my noble Friend the Minister of State that he should make an amendment in another place to add the chairman of the community council as a person who could be included, but not to delete the lord-lieutenant.

Mr. Grimond: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) will be grateful for what the Minister said. My question has nothing to do with that but concerns the lord provost's position. In our debate yesterday the Minister said, as I understood him, that the title


"provost" and "lord provost" had no statutory force, and he implied that the chairman of a community council could call himself a provost or lord provost. That struck me at the time as odd. Would the hon. Gentleman care to consider the matter? Surely the words must have some definition or statutory force? Otherwise, there is no need for the amendment. All that would be needed is for every chairman of a community council to call himself a lord provost.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is nearly right, but we have written into the Bill the title of lord provost for the regions which include the cities. Therefore, it must be specified in that case. As I made clear yesterday, other bodies, such as districts and so on, have the right to call their head a provost or a lord provost if they wish.

Mr. MacArthur: When everybody is somebody, nobody is anybody. It is true that Clause 3 says that the title of Lord Provost in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen shall continue, but unfortunately, by an oversight which my hon. Friend has not yet corrected, a similar provision has not been made for the protection of the Lord Provost of Perth. Does the amendment mean that the Lord Provost of Perth would no longer have the right to propose a contribution of this kind, a right which would be preserved for the other four lord provosts?
If the title of Lord Provost of Perth were preserved as a result of a petition to Her Majesty, or in some other way, would the lord provost not be recognised as a lord provost statutorily? If so, that puts a new light on the whole lamentable exclusion by the Government of the Lord Provost of Perth from the protection of the Bill, and I would hope that the matter would be raised in another place.

Mr. Younger: What we are suggesting does not affect the position of my hon. Friend's constituent, the Lord Provost of Perth, which was discussed very fully in Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that it does not alter his status or position in any way.
I have already made clear the reason why the words "lord provost" appear here.

Mr. Maclennan: I must dissent from the line that the Minister has taken and express surprise at his desire to retain the reference to the lord-lieutenant. I do not fully understand why it is referred to in paragraph (c). The other officers referred to are all representative and elected. The lord-lieutenant, however important a person he may be in the community in which he lives, is not such a person. He is appointed.
The inclusion of the reference to the lord-lieutenant probably widens the clause more than the Government intended. Anybody to which the lord-lieutenant may belong is also involved. The lord-lieutenant might be a patron or a friend of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals; he might belong to the Scientology sect, or to an organisation which is not charitable; he might be an enthusiast for the most bizarre causes. The cause in which a lord-lieutenant is interested may not be one to which it is suitable for the local authority to contribute.
The check provided in the requirement of representative election is valuable, and I support the amendment. The House should not be satisfied with the Minister's assurance.

Mr. Russell Johnston: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert GrantFerris): Order. We are having interjection upon interjection.

Mr. Younger: I give way to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston).

Mr. Johnston: I always understood that by laying down certain things in a statute other things were automatically excluded. By including the lord-lieutenant we may be excluding a Member of Parliament, an archbishop, a cardinal and many other responsible people. Will the hon. Gentleman bear that in mind in re-phrasing the clause?

Mr. Younger: I shall bear in mind what the hon. Member for Inverness and other hon. Members have said, but we are only repeating the existing situation. No new provision is being made. New wording is mostly being introduced to bring the provision into line with the new local government set-up.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is entitled to hie view on th question whether lords-lieutenant should be included. It has frequently been found that the lord-lieutenant is a suitable person to head a disaster appeal, and it is right to enable the local people to do so if they wish an appeal to be made in that way. We should bear in mind that all these provisions are brought forward merely to enable local authorities who wish to do so to give money to such an appeal. That is consistent with giving more power to local authorities to make their own decisions. All we are doing is making it possible for them to make those decisions.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with bodies.

Mr. Younger: The word "body" does not refer to a statutory body. It might be, for instance, an appeal committee set up after a disaster. That has happened fairly frequently in recent years. The provision merely repeats the existing law, which has been found useful. I think we should leave it as it is.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I asked the hon. Gentleman about the National Mod (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Younger: I am sorry, but I cannot give an opinion about the National Mod (Scotland) Bill. I do not think that the National Mod has charitable status, and I cannot give a legal opinion. I shall be glad to write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. David Steel: I do not want to be uncharitable when we have succeeded in getting a minute amendment to the Bill after an all-night sitting, but I am not comforted by the reply of the Under-Secretary of State on the virtue of retaining either the lord-lieutenant or the bodies of which he is a member. As we are making some headway, and as the Minister has undertaken to make an amendment in another place to include the chairman of the community council, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 91

SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND RECREATIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 48, line 31, leave out "intoxicating" and insert "excisable".
This is a drafting amendment, to make the wording of subsection (5) consistent with that of subsection (6).

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 48, line 32, leave out subsection (6).
We return to an amendment dealing with the licensing of local authority premises, which we discussed reasonably thoroughly in Committee. The intention of the amendment is to end the prohibition on local authorities to provide excisable liquor in premises owned by them.
Subsection (6) is an up-to-date version of Section 132(11) of the Local Government Act 1948. It has been included in the Bill without consideration having been given to the events that have affected our social life in the past 25 years. In that time the changes have been considerable, and we have to ask whether, in the changed conditions of 1973, there should be a change in the law.
We have come a long way from the traditional age, when Scottish pubs were simply places which people went into and staggered out of. In Scotland, traditionally, the pub was where people went to drown their sorrows and blot out the dreadful conditions in which they lived. We have moved a long way from this. There has been a modernisation of premises and the introduction of relaxed and pleasant surroundings. It is now accepted that wives go out with their husbands in the evening for a quiet drink and to meet other people.
The provision of places of entertainment has not been confined to commercial and private enterprise establishments. In the towns, cities and small burghs throughout Scotland local authorities are providing places of entertainment. They


are providing restaurants in parks, on beaches and in the city centres. They are providing modern restaurants at which everything from a quick snack to a full meal can be supplied. We have modern municipal dance halls and theatres.
7.15 p.m.
It is now accepted that local authorities can provide first-class entertainment—for example, they can arrange for touring companies in the theatre, opera and ballet to visit their areas. They can provide all kinds of entertainment. But the one thing which they must not do is to provide alcohol. It is true that if there is a reason for having a special licence for example, if a local authority is giving hospitality to a visiting conference it can apply for a special licence and thereby can supply liquor. The liquor cannot be supplied at the local authority's own hands. Somebody must be brought in from the licensed trade to provide that kind of service.
I attend a fair number of conferences throughout Scotland and I have heard the complaint that the existing publicans tend to go a bit over the odds when charging. I am not suggesting that local authorities should enter into vigorous competition with the licensed trade, but in this instance a little competition might not be a bad thing.
Aberdeen has a local problem which would be seriously affected by the subsection. Aberdeen provides within its parks modern restaurants and a problem is thrust upon it affecting the cultural life not only of the whole of the city but of the whole of the North-East.
There are only two theatres in Aberdeen. One is a small theatre which provides a community art centre and where generally amateur productions are put on. There is only one theatre of any size, magnitude or status—namely, Her Majesty's Theatre, Aberdeen. Those people who know Aberdeen well will know that that theatre occupies a prominent place in the cultural life of the city. It has been run by the private concern which built it.
The theatre has continued in existence during the past seven to ten years because of a fairly generous subsidy by the local authority. The owners have concluded recently that even with the subsidy they

can no longer continue to operate the theatre. They say that it is such a brake on their finances, that they can no longer operate it. There is the prospect that the theatre will disappear entirely. It is to be offered for sale. A number of commercial concerns from outside the city see the site—this does not apply to the building—as one of importance for commercial development.
If the theatre is sold to private industry there is no doubt that it will be destroyed. The owners have said that they are prepared to give the local authority the first option to take over the premises. That seems a reasonable proposition and one upon which the local authority is actively engaged. It is a proposition which has widespread support from those people involved in the arts, in music and in the theatre through the whole of Scotland.
It would be a tragedy of the first magnitude if the local authority were unable to take it over. The position is that if the revenue from the sale of liquor during the intervals of performances were taken away the theatre would be a total white elephant. It is my understanding of the position that even if the corporation buy the premises and then farm it out to the people who have been running it previously—that would amount, in a sense, to leasing it back to them on a contractual arrangement—it is probable that they would not be able to get a licence.
The local authority is faced with the handicap of trying to provide a service when faced with restrictions. It is difficult at the best of times to maintain theatres, and to take away the pleasantries of going to the theatre will mean a great handicap to the corporation.
We are not arguing about the general licensing laws of Scotland. This is not an argument about the age at which people should be able to consume liquor and whether the age should be reduced. We are not concerned with opening hours or about all the paraphernalia of liquor licensing. This is a discussion about whether local authorities should be allowed to provide a service in their own premises which is provided in commercial premises elsewhere.
We had a reasonable discussion about the matter in Committee but we did not


have an answer from the Government why the amendment which was then put forward should not be accepted. The Under-Secretary of State stood his ground. He said that the Clayson Committee was examining the whole structure of the licensing laws in Scotland and that it would be quite wrong to make any law to change the position whilst the committee was reporting.
It was suggested that the Clayson Committee might not be long in reporting. In fact, the report is long overdue. We are concerned only to see that local authorities are able to provide a service. It may be that the local authorities have fashioned a stick with which to beat their own backs. They are much concerned about the position and they have led evidence to the Clayson Committee. It seemed to them at the time that that was the only way in which to get a change in the law. However, the fact that that evidence has been led to the Clayson Committee should not take away from the House the responsibility of making a minor change of this nature. Although I am suggesting that it is a minor statutory change, it is a major change in terms of social conditions and worth while supporting.
No argument can be put forward to suggest that the provision of licensed facilities by local authorities would in any way be detrimental to our local life. In no way would it result in more drink being consumed. If people go to a restaurant and find that they cannot get a drink they leave the premises and go elsewhere. The provision of licensed facilities would be no incentive to increase the amount of drink consumed.
If there is no real case of a social character which can be led against the amendment, is there any technical case, apart from the Clayson Committee? The only case which could be advanced in the 1948 legislation, leaving aside social conditions, was that from 1948 onwards it was primarily in the burghs where the majority of licences were involved. The burghs used to be the licensing courts. In effect, they were judge and jury. When an elected member of an authority was a magistrate and a member of the licensing court then obviously as a local councillor he was interested in seeing that the facilities which as a councillor he was putting forward were of the best. I

accept the argument to some extent that the burgh councillors might be regarded as judges and jurors in their own courts. That no longer applies and the Government have always claimed that they would make no change in the licensing arrangements until the Clayson Committee reported.
However, a change has been made as to the manner in which licences are granted. No longer will the burgh councils be the licensing courts because the licensing courts will be composed half of elected members and half of justices of the peace. The licensing courts, therefore, will not favour local authorities.
In this day and age people are entitled to expect reasonable facilities in premises supplied by local authorities as in every other place to which they go. I do not wish to set up public houses in vigorous competition with local authority premises but to provide local authority premises with the normal facilities which are made available throughout the rest of Scotland. The Committee defeated our amendment on the casting vote of the Chairman. I hope that in the Division tonight we shall have more success.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: I support this amendment. The arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) are excellent. The Government's argument in Committee that we should await the revision of the general licensing law should not apply in this case. This is a golden opportunity for the Government to liberalise the licensing law of Scotland without waiting for a general revision.
I should like to plug my native town of Kirkcaldy, which two weeks ago celebrated the 250th anniversary of the birth of one of its most famous sons, Adam Smith. A dinner was held on one of the evenings during the celebrations which was attended by the Secretary of State in the modern Adam Smith Centre, an ideal centre for holding a conference. But the only way in which those who attended could enjoy the refreshments, of which even the Secretary of State partook, was for the local authority to get a special permission and to bring in an outside licence holder.
This is entirely wrong. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman must have


second thoughts, particularly in view of the advantages and facilities which this centre will provide not only for the community in Kirkcaldy but for people in all parts of Scotland, when they come to use the centre for their conferences.
I hope that, in this speech I have set an example of brevity, clarity and expedition which other hon. Members will follow.

Mr. James Hamilton: I, too, will be brief. I took part in the debate in Standing Committee on a similar amendment, when the Minister's answer was that he was awaiting the Clayson Report. With due deference to him, that report will not make any difference to the objects of the amendment.
At the moment, private golf, tennis and bowling clubs all have licensed premises. In my constituency, a private club operating within the bowling club owned by the district council has a licence so that people can have a drink. This ludicrous situation is permissible under the existing legislation.
The amendment was covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) and it was well and truly covered in Committee, but we were not given a clear answer. It will be no reply tonight for the Minister to say that he is awaiting the Clayson Report.
Since the matter was defeated only by the Chairman's casting vote in Committee, I assume that the right hon. Gentleman has given this matter careful thought. I have spoken to officials and members of many local authorities, all of whom have told me what a farcical situation they face, particularly in those authorities with their own halls. Therefore, I hope that the Minister has done the exploratory work and investigation that I and my hon. Friends have done and that he will give us an acceptable reply.

7.30 p.m

Mr. Maclennan: I support the case that my hon. Friends have made. I should like to cite one instance of the disadvantage of this clause from my own constituency experience, and to ask one question of the Under-Secretary.
Under subsection (6), could a local authority lease premises to another party for an approved purpose, including the

privilege of the sale of liquor? I understand that this provision would not permit that, because the embargo appears to be on the sale of liquor in any premises provided under the clause. That seems an absolute embargo on the sale of liquor in premises that a local authority owns, whoever may run and operate them. If that is so, it is an extremely restrictive condition and should be struck out on those grounds alone.
A second illustration of the unfortunate consequences of the subsection, drawn from my constituency experience, is the interest of the local authority of Caithness in developing tourism and providing facilities such as caravan sites, wet weather facilities and even a sand yachting clubhouse at Dunnet Bay. In at least one of these facilities, I understand, liquor is being sold. It would be a serious threat to the revenue of that place if this embargo were applied. I understand that it is being done through a licensee, but in premises built by the local authority.
I should be grateful if the Minister would clear up my uncertainty about this provision. In any case, it would eliminate all cause for uncertainty if he would simply accept the amendment.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) moved his amendment fairly and reasonably. I entirely agree with what he said about his city.
The amendment would remove the prohibition on the grant of a liquor licensing certificate to local authority premises authorising the sale to the public of alcohol and would repeal Section 132 (11) of the Local Government Act 1948. Subsection (6), which is the key point of Clause 91 in relation to the amendment, solely re-enacts Section 132 (11) and therefore retains the status quo. One reason is that this is not a licensing Bill.
I believe that the Government have taken up a reasonable and correct position. While hon. Members opposite have anticipated what I might say by claiming that the Clayson Report is not an adequate reason for rejecting the amendment, I ask them carefully to consider just what an important report it is expected to be.
We think that it would be quite wrong to make a substantial change in licensing procedure before my right hon. Friend has had a chance to study the report, publish it and then, rightly, give a period during which interested parties can put forward their views. When he has received those views and has listened to all other advice which may be offered to him will be the moment to come to a conclusion.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that one reason why we should be careful is the importance of the Clay-son report. What surprised many of us was an article by Jack Warden in the Glasgow Herald. Mr. Warden said that the Government were shying away from the conclusions of the Erroll report and that the Clayson Report would in effect be a damp squib, with no attention paid to it. Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that we are not to believe what Mr. Warden said?

Mr. Monro: Mr. Warden is an extremely competent Lobby correspondent, but that does not mean that one has always to agree with him. I expect to value the Clayson Report extremely highly. I am sure that that view will be shared by all hon. Members when it is published. We must not underestimate it and therefore it would be wrong to come to a major conclusion before the procedures which I have outlined have been carried out by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gourlay: Surely the fact that this provision merely alters another local government Act in itself means that we are not in effect making any alteration to the licensing laws. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument has no relevance to ours.

Mr. Monro: It is a matter of opinion. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about Kirkcaldy and I am sorry that Adam Smith did not go down with as big a wallop as he hoped. But I suspect that it was a very good party for all that.
The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) raised again the matter of the club certificate and the registration of clubs. I can give him the assurance he wants. I carefully read the Stand

ing Committee report and I want to dispel the doubt raised whether subsection (2) is more narrowly drawn than Section 132(11) of the 1948 Act, and whether it might not prohibit activities now carried on, particularly in members' clubs, in supplying drink in premises owned by the local authority—for example, bowling clubs.
Subsection (2) does no more than re-enact Section 132(11), covering the provision of facilities for the sale of drinks to the general public, and activities which require a certificate for the supply of liquor in members' clubs do not require a licensing certificate. They register with the sheriff for the supply of liquor and are not affected by the prohibitions in this subsection. This covers to a large extent the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—that if the members are running the club then of course they are entitled within their membership to buy and drink alcohol. That is common to many hundreds of clubs of all types throughout Scotland.

Mr. Maclennan: I am afraid that I have not made the point clearly because the hon. Gentleman has not answered it. If the local authority provides the clubhouse which is not a club in a sense but premises which are open to the public but which are leased by some other operator, does the fact that the lessor of the club is the local authority prevent the sale of liquor in the premises?

Mr. Monro: I hesitate to give a definite answer, as the licensing laws of Scotland are particularly complicated. But I am of opinion that one must have club membership before the club licence can operate. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the building he describes is open to the general public, then I am afraid that members of the general public would not, in my view, be permitted to purchase alcohol.

Mr. Maclennan: Even if the premises are leased to a third party and are being run by him on licence from the local authority? If that is so, it is an extraordinarily restrictive condition and should be struck out.

Mr. Monro: If the club is registered with the sheriff for membership, the members may use it, but the general public


may not come in and buy unless they are members of the club.

Mr. James Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman not give me a more satisfactory explanation? I quoted the instance of a bowling club owned by the local authority. Within that club is a private club which has a licence from the sheriff for the sale of alcohol. In such circumstances, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a backdoor method and that he should be able to do something about it?

Mr. Monro: The members of the bowling club can drink and bowl to their hearts' content. There is no question of that. But if members of the general public came into the premises to bowl they could not use the facilities of the club if they were not members. That is the important point.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that the amendment would be a minor change, but I disagree. I think that it would be substantial. Perhaps hon. Members opposite are in too much of a hurry. But I am sure they will accept also that they were a long time in office and did not make an effort to change the licensing laws.
The Government have given substantial consideration to the matter and are continuing to do so before introducing changes. The Clayson Report will be a tremendous help in the future consideration by the Government and it is only right to wait and see what it says before we proceed with any changes. It is far better to wait a little longer and to get the thing right than to rush in now and get it wrong. I appreciate the feelings of the Opposition but I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The ministerial responsibility for replying to the amendment changed between the Committee and Report stages but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman added nothing to the Government's case, which was put forward in the same bland manner in Committee. It is unsatisfactory to found the Government's case on the argument that this is not a licensing Bill. Of course it is not, but in it many substantial changes are being made in local government functions which are not

strictly speaking part of or consequential upon local government reform. This would be a minor change in statute, and for the hon. Gentleman also to rest his case on the ground of waiting for Clayson is a bit of a humbug.
The Clayson Committee urgently wrote to the Secretary of State saying that it disagreed with the provisions that he was proposing for changing the method of granting licences. The Committee's views were swept aside. No account was taken of them. We await the report of the Clayson Committee with great interest, but if this is how its views on the licensing law is to be dealt with, the future looks extremely bleak.
The Government are missing an opportunity to make a minor legal change but an important social change, the demand for which is widespread throughout Scotland. They are being far too timid and, as usual, they come down on the side of the licensed trade. It is about time that they were exposed for that.
The Opposition will support this amendment in the Division lobby.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Dempsey: After listening to the Under-Secretary of State, I am more confused than ever.
I have the same problem in Coat-bridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) spoke about a bowling green which, incidentally, I opened as I was a councillor for that ward at the time. The Under-Secretary will be interested to know that, having performed the opening ceremony and being a public representative, because I was not a member of the club I was not allowed into the pavilion until I found someone to nominate me—

Mr. Lambie: My hon. Friend does not drink.

Mr. Dempsey: I drink orange juice and soda. But could anything be more ridiculous than to have a public asset provided for members of the public from rates and taxes where it is possible to have a game of bowls but where it is impossible to enter one part of the premises which is licensed as a club although it is also provided by public


money? This is a disgraceful inhibition.
In Coatbridge the position is even more ridiculous. The Drumpellier Golf Club has a licence. The Drumpellier Cricket Club, which is one of the most successful in Scotland, also has a licence. However the municipal golf course has no licence. To get a licence a manager has to be appointed to apply on behalf of his club. That is the way to get round what is a very antiquated local government regulation.
I should have thought in this day and age that the Under-Secretary would say that the situation was farcical and riddled with contradiction. It is quite indefensible and it is time we amended the Local Government Act. That is all the hon. Gentleman is being asked to do.
I have visited this municipal golf course. It is most regrettable that such a beautiful course and such excellent premises cannot have matters so arranged so that any ratepayer can enjoy a game of golf and have some type of refreshment afterwards.
As most of my hon. Friends know, alcohol does not appeal to me. But it does to many people. If people can play over one golf course and enjoy a little dram afterwards they should be able to do the same on the municipal golf course. Thousands of pounds have been spent on laying out a beautiful course and excellent premises, but whereas a neighbouring club has a licence, we our

selves cannot obtain one. The situation dates back to a very antiquated age in society.

It is suggested that we should wait for the Clayson Report. We do not know when it will be published and how long it will be before we have an opportunity to debate it, let alone when some legislation may arise out of it. During all that time this contradiction in terms, this unjustifiable piece of hypocrisy, must continue where countless thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money is spent but where the ratepayers cannot enjoy any alcoholic refreshment after they have played golf. The Under-Secretary must admit that it is completely indefensible and warrants urgent action. Surely here is our opportunity to amend an obsolete Act of Parliament.

I ask the Under-Secretary to remember that local authorities are no longer the old authorities which provided a few swings and roundabouts. Today they provide facilities for cricket, football, hockey and for a complete range of sports, and all those who participate in those sports enjoy a wee dram afterwards. I believe that we should support the amendment and thereby allow them to have it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 182.

Division No. 165.]
AYES
[7.52 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Coleman, Donald
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Allen, Scholefield
Concannon, J. D.
Gourlay, Harry


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Armstrong, Ernest
Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Ashton, Joe
Cronin, John
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Atkinson, Norman
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bagier, Gordon A. T
Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Barnes, Michael
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hardy, Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bishop, E. S.
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hattersley, Roy


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Deakins, Eric
Horam, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dempsey, James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Booth, Albert
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Eadie, Alex
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne. W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Janner, Greville




Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ellis, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
English, Michael
John, Brynmor


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Harry
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carmichael, Neil
Forrester, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Gilbert, Dr. John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Kaufman, Gerald


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Golding, John
Kelley, Richard




Kerr, Russell
Moyle, Roland
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Lambie, David
Murray, Ronald King
Stallard, A. W.


Lamond, James
Oakes, Gordon
Steel, David


Lawson, George
O'Halloran, Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lestor, Miss Joan
O'Malley, Brian
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Orme, Stanley
Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)


Lomas, Kenneth
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Loughlin, Charles
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Paget, R. T.
Tope, Graham


McBride, Neil
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Torney, Tom


McElhone, Frank
Pardoe, John
Tuck, Raphael


Machin, George
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Varley, Eric G.


Mackenzie, Gregor
Pavitt, Laurie
Wainwright, Edwin


Mackie, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackintosh, John P.
Probert, Arthur
Wallace, George


Maclennan, Robert
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Watkins, David


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rhodes, Geoffrey
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitehead, Phillip


Marquand, David
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n &amp; R'dnor)
Whitlock, William


Mayhew, Christopher
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Meacher, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Millan, Bruce
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Milne, Edward
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Woof, Robert


Molloy, William
Sillars, James



Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. James Hamilton and


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Gardner, Edward
Maddan, Martin


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gibson-Watt, David
Madel, David


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol


Astor, John
Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mawby, Ray


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Green, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Benyon, W.
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)
Moate, Roger


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Molyneaux, James


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Monro, Hector


Body, Richard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Montgomery, Fergus


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bowden, Andrew
Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Havers, Sir Michael
Murton, Oscar


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hicks, Robert
Neave, Alrey


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Higgins, Terence L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Normanton, Tom


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Holland, Philip
Nott, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holt, Miss Mary
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Churchill, W. S.
Hornby, Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt. Hon. Graham (Crosby)


Clegg, Walter
Iremonger, T L.
Parkinson, Cecil


Cockeram, Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cooke, Robert
James, David
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Redmond, Robert


Dean, Paul
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dixon, Piers
Kirk, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fidler, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shersby, Michael


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Sinclair, Sir George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Soref, Harold


Fookes, Miss Janet
McLaren, Martin
Speed, Keith


Fowler, Norman
McMaster, Stanley
Spence, John


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sproat, Iain




Stainton, Keith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trew, Feter
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Stokes, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Worsley, Marcus


Sutcliffe, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tapsell, Peter
Waddington, David
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)



Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Tim Fortesque and Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wiggin, Jerry



Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wilkinson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 93

GENERAL FUND

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 90, in page 49, line 36, leave out from 'below' to end of line 38 and insert:
'(a) all sums received by or on behalf of the authority shall be paid into that fund;
(b) all fees, commissions, discounts allowed on payment of accounts and expenses payable to or recovered by any officer of a local authority in respect of any business relating to the authority whether by reason of his office or otherwise shall be accounted for and paid into that fund;
and all sums payable by the authority shall be paid out of that fund'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this amendment we are to take Government Amendment No. 328, in Schedule 27.

Mr. Younger: We discussed this amendment in Committee, and I undertook to ascertain the views of the local authority associations about this matter, following a request from the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). I have established that a working group of local authority and departmental officials, as long ago as 1971, recommended that fee funds should be abolished. This was agreed at a meeting of local authority associations in October 1971. It was an oversight which was not covered by this amendment and which was not provided in the Bill when it was introduced. It has not produced an adverse reaction, or any other reaction from the local authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 97

ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY ACCOUNTS IN SCOTLAND

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move Amendment No. 91, in page 52, line 5, after 'Commission', insert 'and local authorities'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we can also discuss Amendment No. 376, in page 52, line 5, leave out 'them' and insert 'the Commission'.

Mr. Hughes: This clause sets up the Commission for Local Authority Accounts. It is interesting to note that on the previous page of the Bill—page 51—in subsection (1) it is stated that members of the commission shall be:
appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with such other organisations or persons as he may think appropriate".
It is the duty of the commission to advise on local authority audit practices rather than carry out the audit itself. The commission advises as to methods, styles and changes in the practice of local authority account-keeping, especially after this vast reorganisation has taken place. It is a fairly minor but important courtesy that if one consults local authorities regarding membership of the commission before members are appointed one should at least consult them regarding directions of a general character in the discharge of their functions.
If I understand the clause correctly, the commission will investigate, or be asked by the Secretary of State to investigate, a practice—not a malpractice—in the keeping of accounts. The relevant local authority should be consulted. This view has been represented to me by one local authority, which considered that this was something it would like to have.
Amendment No. 376 is a drafting amendment, consequential upon Amendment No. 91. I hope that the Under-Secretary will feel flexible at this early hour of our proceedings and accept the amendments.

Mr. Younger: We discussed this question in Committee, when I told the hon. Gentleman that I was sympathetic to his point of view. I had hoped to be able to bring forward a Government amended at this stage to put the matter right, but I am afraid that because extensive consultations were necessary it was not possible to do it in time.
I can now say that I agree that this is a good amendment in principle. The wording would need to be considerably different, however, and I have a more or less tentative wording drawn up. I shall ask my noble Friend to introduce such an amendment in another place. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the matter.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Under-Secretary for his response and for his promise to deal with this matter in another place. In view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 8

PROVISIONS AS TO THE COMMISSION FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY ACCOUNTS IN SCOTLAND

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 92, in page 163, line I, after 'shall', insert:
'subject to sub-paragraph (4) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this we can also take Government Amendment No. 93.

Mr. Younger: There was discussion about this matter during the 34th Sitting of the Committee, when there was criticism that this Schedule did not include specific provision for a person's membership of the Commission for Local Authority Accounts to be terminated by the Secretary of State if the circumstances should demand it. Paragraph (2) includes the common provision that:

Each member … shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
The intention is to include in letters of appointment provision as to the period when each appointment will normally end. It seems desirable to insert in the schedule provision regarding premature termination of appointment similar to that in Schedule 4(1) relating to the Boundary Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 93, in page 163, line 6, at end insert:
(4) The Secretary of State may remove a person from membership of the Commission if he is satisfied that that person—
(a) has had his estate sequestrated or has made a trust deed for behoof of his creditors or a composition contract;
(b) is incapacitated by physical or mental illness;
(c) has been absent from meetings of the Commission for a period longer than six consecutive months otherwise than for a reason approved by the Secretary of State; or
(d) is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member.'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 94, in page 163, line 36, leave out paragraph 6 and insert:
'6.—(1) Officers and agents, appointed by the Commission shall hold office on such reasonable terms and conditions, including conditions as to remuneration, as the Commission thinks fit.
(2) The Commission may pay such pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any of its officers on their retirement or death, or make such payments towards the provision of such pensions, allowances or gratuities, as the Commission thinks fit'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 95, in page 163, line 37, at end insert:
'(1A) Officers and servants appointed by the Commission shall be employed on such reasonable terms and conditions, including conditions as to remuneration, as the Commission think fit'.

Mr. Younger: Paragraph 6 of the schedule deals with the tenure of office and remuneration of the officers and agents of the Commission for Local Authority Accounts and with pension arrangements for officers. This amendment is to bring the provision into line with normal local authority practice.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for tabling this amendment. He will notice that subsection (1) of his new paragraph 6 is virtually the same as my amendment. He has gone further, because he has made the appropriate reference in respect of pensions, allowances and gratuities. I know that local government people are concerned about this and were anxious to have such an amendment tabled. I address my thanks to the Government for this unusual step in anticipating my needs.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 105

REGULATIONS AS TO AMENDMENTS

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 335, in page 59, line 8, leave out subsection (3).
The purpose of this amendment is to delete that provision in the Bill which makes it a criminal offence carrying a fine, normally of £20, for a person contravening regulations applying to the preparation and keeping of accounts. The introduction of a criminal provision by way of regulation in this context is somewhat extraordinary. It requires justification. In any case, it is such a small penalty—a nominal penalty—that that, too, requires justification if it is genuinely intended to be a deterrent to criminal behaviour. It is also important to recognise that subsection (3), of which I complain, provides a penalty for negligent behaviour as well as for wilful commission of an offence.
I think it is an undesirable practice to introduce criminal offences into Bills of this kind without specifically declaring of what the offence is to consist—in fact, to provide the penalty before defining the offence. That practice is to be deplored and I strongly urge the Under-Secretary to drop it altogether. I doubt if it would make a great deal of difference to local authority officials, but on the whole it is better out than in.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point.
A penalty provision such as that contained in subsection (3) in relation to accounting matters is by no means unprecedented in legislation. Sections 198 and 205 of the Local Government (Scotland)

Act 1947 contain such a provision in relation to the production of documents for inspection by the auditor and the giving of public notice of any surcharge or rectification of accounts ordered by the Secretary of State. There is the equivalent of this clause in English legislation, in Section 166 of the Local Government Act 1972.
As the hon. Gentleman says, it may appear that a penalty provision is unnecessary or undesirable from the viewpoint of a local authority, but its basic purpose is to provide protection for the public, and in this case the public is the general body of ratepayers. It is protection particularly in regard to the way in which accounts are to be kept and are to be open to inspection. This is a rarely used, full-back safeguard for the public interest. It is a preservation of existing provisions and there is similar wording elsewhere in this Bill in Clause 100, which we have already passed, as regards producing documents for auditors. It is very rarely used but it is a minor safeguard for the public, and I suggest that, while we appreciate the hon. Gentleman's arguments, we should reject the amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that this is in English legislation. That does not exactly thrill me, and I do not consider it justification for doing it in Scotland.
What troubles me is the mandatory nature of this provision. There is no escape from it—he "shall" be guilty of an offence and he "shall" be liable to these mandatory penalties—a fine not exceeding £20 and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, a fine not exceeding £50. I would not regard those as nominal fines.
What slightly worries me is that we are introducing these penalties on a not very substantial precedent—although perhaps there are more substantial precedents to come—and the offences are offences against regulations. We have not seen the regulations. We have no idea what they may or may not contain. Indeed, if the House is very busy, the chances of our seeing or debating these regulations are very limited, because:
A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under


this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament "—
in other words, only on the initiative of a Member of Parliament and provided there is enough time.
Anyone who knows the state of play in debating regulations will appreciate that the chance of getting a debate, and getting it in time, is strictly limited. The amount of stuff that is coming from the Common Market legislation or consequential changes in respect of various aspects of Government, certainly in Scotland, is difficult to cope with. For my sins, almost daily I receive a batch of these papers, delivered into my hands, and I try to persuade my hon. Friends to take an interest in them. I do not like the ironical laughter from my hon. Friend and able helper the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael). We have been promised ways and means of trying to get round this so that we shall not lose touch with what is happening.
It is rather unfair that we should introduce, by regulation, this penalty, not for gross negligence but for wilful or negligent contravention. If a person is to be subject to this there is no doubt at all about his being found guilty. And all this is done by a regulation that we may never have a chance to debate properly. I do not think it is a good principle. I have known the time when Conservative Members have kept the House up hour after hour, well into the middle of the night, to discuss any such regulations as they got the chance to discuss. That was in the days when we were not allowed just one and a half hours to discuss a regulation but could do so, even on a negative resolution, all through the night. On many occasions I suffered through having to listen to droning voices on this subject.
Of course, I am denied these rights, which were whittled away by the Conservative Government. That was one of the things they changed in 1951, thus denying hon. Members an opportunity for full and free discussion of such regulations. That may be just as well, because we could not have done it now, but it means that we are going to make people subject to penalties in respect of I do not know what—because I do not know what the regulations will contain. The

chances are that the Government are under no obligation to obtain the agreement of the House to them. This is one of the things concerning which the Government ought to be under an obligation.
If the Government are going to subject people to a fine they should not do so under the negative procedure, bearing in mind, of course, that we are only given the general tenor of what the regulations may contain. They may be very unfair indeed, or very complex, so that a person could negligently contravene them. I really would like to find out whether or not the hon. Gentleman has anything more substantial on which to base the justification for this provision than what he has already given us. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for having raised this matter.

Mr. Younger: I promised to answer the right hon. Gentleman. There has been precedent for this—in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947. There will be consultations with the local authority associations before regulations are made. The penalty will apply only to a contravention of the provisions of the regulations which is declared in them to be an offence. It is right that they should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There are ways of doing that if the Opposition of the day wish to use them.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Opposition wish to raise many of these matters, but I can assure him that time is strictly limited. If he does not believe me, let him consult the Leader of the House.
The House and the Government are in difficulty in dealing with this plethora of regulations. With the best will in the world we cannot deal with them all.

Mr. Maclennan: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for the support he has given me in this matter. I regard the principle here as extremely serious, and I do not find it at all satisfactory that the Minister refers to some precedents. There are in English law and in Scots law many precedents which ought to be departed from. It is a bad legislative precedent to import this provision into a


Bill which is not a criminal Bill and has nothing to do with criminal law but sets up a penalty for an offence which is not described but which is to be described subsequently, by being embodied in regulations which may or may not be made and to which exception may or may not be taken. It seems to me much too serious a matter to be treated in the way the hon. Gentleman has treated it.
There is a minor point that I want to refer to, namely, my use of the word "nominal" referring to the fines. Both fines are substantial, but in relation to the amount of money which might be involved in the alleged offence they might be so small as not to constitute a deterrent to a wilful contravention. This goes to demonstrate what I take to be the lack of supporting evidence for the necessity for such a clause. It is incumbent on the Minister, if he is creating a new offence, to indicate not merely that there is a precedent for such a provision but what the need for it is. Who has advised him that this is necessary? What local authority associations have advised that this is necessary? What local authorities have said that it is necessary? And what grounds has he to believe that such a provision will either warn off from a wilful contravention of the regulations or prevent negligence occurring?
We cannot rest content with such an inadequate justification of the creation of a new criminal offence and possibly a whole range of offences under regulations which may be drafted. I feel strongly that this is an extremely serious matter, and it is not one I am prepared to allow to go by with such a scant answer from the Minister.

Mr. Younger: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks my reply scant. It was not meant to be scant. I am doing my best to give him as many answers as I possibly can.

Mr. Ross: The best is not good enough.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view on that. I should be happy to take a general view on that subject as between him and me.
This is not a new offence. The hon. Gentleman referred to it as being a new offence. It is not. In Section 198(2) of

the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 there is similar provision.
Of course, it is very much a matter of opinion—that I entirely accept—whether this is unnecessary, as the hon. Gentleman thinks, and he thinks it will not be a deterrent. I think that it is necessary and that it will be some deterrent in some cases at any rate. This is a small protection for the public—not a great protection but a small one. On that point we must agree to differ, but I hope the House will not accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 9

AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FINANCE

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 96, in page 166, line 34, at end insert
and the words from 'in order' to 'relates' and the words from 'in accordance' onwards shall cease to have effect".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With which perhaps it would be convenient to take Amendment No. 201, in Schedule 27, page 279, line 36, column 3, at end insert:
In section 262(1). in paragraph (b) of the proviso, the words from "in order" to "relates" and the words from "in accordance" onwards.

Mr. Younger: Section 262 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 deals with the period for repaying any sum borrowed by a local authority. Under proviso (b) of subsection (1) where money has been borrowed by a local authority under Section 258 of the Act in order to lend to another local authority or joint board the money borrowed by the first local authority must be repaid within one month after the loan which it has made is due to be repaid by the second local authority or joint board.
Two phrases in the proviso are applicable to money lent to other local authorities and joint boards but not to other bodies such as community councils or harbour authorities to which the proviso is extended by paragraph 20 of this Schedule 9 to the Bill. Neither phrase is strictly essential to the reading of the


proviso and the amendments are designed to repeal rather than alter them.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not quite follow why this is necessary. Is it about ease of access by local authorities to the capital market?

Mr. Younger: It is not precisely that. The provision as it stands is that where a local authority has borrowed and has then lent to another local authority, when the loan is repaid the original local authority must pay back what it originally borrowed within a period of one month. As I mentioned, there are two phrases in the proviso applicable to money lent to other local authorities and joint boards, but not—and this is the point—to bodies such as community councils and harbour authorities, to which the proviso is extended by paragraph 20 of this Schedule 9 to the Bill. That is why the amendment is necessary. Neither phrase is, therefore, strictly essential to the reading of the proviso, and we propose to repeal them rather than alter them, which would have been the alternative.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. Will he tell me if I am right—that this paragraph 20 will now read—let us listen to the words with which we have to grapple—
In section 262, in subsection (1), in paragraph (b) of the proviso for the words paragraph (d), (e), (f) or (g)' there shall be substituted the words paragraph (d), (f), (g) (ga) or (gb)' and the words from 'in order' to 'relates' and the words from 'in accordance' onwards shall cease to have effect".
That is perfectly clear!
This is what we are expected to view and discuss in the limited time we have for the Bill. It is shocking. Of course, we have to take the hon. Gentleman's word for it that it means something, but anybody reading this paragraph in the schedule will find it just nonsense. I wish something could be done about this kind of legislating.
As far as I can see, the amendment is not entirely consequential because it mentions harbour authorities as well. It seems to be a change in the law as well as being consequential to the reorganisation of local government. We are taking quite a bit for granted when we get stuff

like this thrown at us by Parliamentary draftsmen and are expected to understand it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 97, in page 167, line 13, at end insert:
'and subsection (2) shall cease to have effect'.—[Mr. Younger.]

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 98, in page 173, line 30, at end insert:

The Housing (Scotland) Act 1969

In Schedule 2, in paragraph 2, for the words "as may be prescribed" there shall be substituted the words ", not exceeding such sum as may be prescribed, as the local authority may determine".

A local authority may incur expenses under section 24(2) of the Act, relating to repair of a house or building in serious disrepair, which are chargeable to the owner or occupier of the house. As a means of assisting the authority to recover its expenses, Schedule 2 enables the authority to make them the subject of a charging order, which provides and declares that the house or building is thereby charged and burdened with an annuity to pay the amount of the expenses.

Paragraph 2 of the schedule provides that the annuity charged shall be such sum as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State for every £100 of the amount due, shall commence from the date of the order, and shall be payable for a term of 30 years to the local authority. Thus, strictly, a statutory instrument requires to be made every time interest rates change—and they do frequently. The amendment alters the position of the Secretary of State by allowing the amount of the annuity to be determined by the local authorities up to any maximum prescribed by the Secretary of State. This will enable the local authority to determine the amount of the annuity to be included in a charging order according to the interest rate prevailing at the time the order is made without the Secretary of State having to make a new statutory instrument with each change of interest rates.

Mr. Ross: This is eminently sensible, but I am surprised that the Government have not gone even further. It saves the


prescription constantly having to be made by the Secretary of State with changing rates of interest. The amendment reads
not exceeding such sum as may be prescribed, as the local authority may determine".
Could we not have trusted the local authorities that much further and left the whole question of a prescription by the Secretary of State out altogether? It is still up to a maximum amount which is to be laid down by the Secretary of State.
Is this so terribly important—a matter on which the whole fate of the economy of the nation will undoubtedly depend—that the Secretary of State must keep his hand there and say, "I do not trust the local authorities to do justice. I must prescribe a maximum"?
Last night I invited the Under-Secretary of State to assert himself. He has not got a senior Minister of the Scottish Office or any other Department present, but I assure him that he will get the support of everyone behind him if he decides to withdraw the amendment and puts down a manuscript amendment giving full freedom to the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman has missed his chance. The Secretary of State has arrived. Therefore, I will address this point to him.
Great play has been made about the extent of the freedom being given to local authorities. We have been given an example here. But we have found—the Secretary of State will find that this is a point worthy of his attention—that the extent of the freedom being given to the local authorities is such that, instead of the right hon. Gentleman approving every possible change, he will in future prescribe only the maximum. I suggest that, without putting the whole economy of the nation at risk, the right hon. Gentleman could have given full freedom to local authorities to determine this whole matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 123

EDUCATION COMMITTEES

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 99, in page 72, line 8, leave out 'half' and insert 'two-thirds'.
We discussed this subject in a rather wider way in Committee. The object of the amendment is to try to weight matters

rather more in favour of the elected representative of an education committee. The education committee does not have the final power under the Bill. The education committee is not the education authority. The education authority is the regional council or the island council. Therefore, whatever decisions are made by the education committee will always require to be accepted and acted upon, perhaps voted upon, by the education authority, which will be the regional council.
That, however, goes only part of the way. While the ultimate authority will be with the regional council, which will be entirely elected, clearly if the education committee continually makes recommendations to the regional council, the education authority, it will be very difficult continually to turn it down by voting, even though the representatives on the authority are elected.
Therefore, to be absolutely sure that the education committee is more representative of the elected representatives than the non-elected representatives, the balance should be rather better than that envisaged in subsection (2), which states:
but at least half of the members appointed to the committee"—
that is, the education committee—
shall be members of the authority.
We feel that this would, at the extreme, give the elected representatives on the authority who are delegated from the authority to the committee, a majority of only one.
The breakdown of the education committee is that at least two members shall represent religious opinion, in one case, the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and, in the other case, the Church of Scotland. At least two members will represent teachers or educational interests in Scotland. We shall have a minimum of four non-elected representatives on the education committee, which would mean theoretically that we could have a committee as small as nine.
However, we know that in other education committees in Scotland at present there are considerably more than four non-elected members, at least in the larger authorities. This would mean that the majority of elected representatives relative to the total members of the committee would become smaller and smaller. In


Glasgow at present, out of a committee of 37 there are eight non-elected representatives of churches and educational interests, according to the 1972–73 diary of Glasgow Corporation. If my memory serves me right, in Aberdeen there are nine non-elected members in a much smaller committee. The balance is certainly very much against the elected representatives, particularly when one realises that the existing education committees are statutory bodies with full powers except for finance.
The elected representatives should have a greater security and a greater representative aspect in the decisions made before matters are passed back to the education authority. It is probably true that the non-elected members, whether representative of church or educational interests, seldom take part in important decisions of the education committee which are considered highly political. Whether or not they take part in those votes, however—I have not checked on this matter very carefully because it is not very important—the fact is that they are allowed to take part in any decision. We organise our politics on a party system in Britain, and even more so in Scotland. Eight or nine non-elected representatives assuming that they all voted in one way, would mean that the people who were on the committee because they had stood for election and been approved by the electorate would, if they wished to vote the other way, need somehow to muster a majority greater than eight, in the case of Glasgow at present, in order to carry their point of view.
We have had a number of instances in the past seven or eight years when the majority of the controlling parties, both Conservative and Labour, has been extremely small. When the non-elected representatives had voting power they were able to exercise great influence either directly or indirectly. That is wrong and there should be a greater safeguard to give the elected representatives an overwhelming majority. I do not regard two-thirds as overwhelming in view of the breakdown of the voting figures in most cases and the fact that on the important and crucial issues voting will be on a party basis.
One way to overcome the problem, as was suggested in Committee, is that

there should be no non-elected representatives but that the franchise should be open to everyone. The case was put strongly in respect of school teachers. We tried in dealing with the clauses imposing limitations or restrictions on those who can stand for election to make sure that teachers and other local authority employees were able to stand. We were defeated and therefore we must do something to make it clear that in the last analysis the elected representatives will carry the day.
We discussed at great length in Committee the question of representation of religious organisations. We met various religious representatives in our constituencies. I had an interesting discussion with one fairly powerful religious group which agreed that perhaps the correct way to treat religious representation would be for its influence to be felt in the community without its needing a special place. However, it still wanted a special place on the education committee, and that is how things stand. There will be at least two representatives from the religious organisations and at least two from teachers' organisations.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will look closely at this to see that the balance is not weighted on the wrong side. I hope that he will accept our suggestion that the proportion should be changed from half to two-thirds. That would be asking very little. Some of the education committees will certainly be much larger than nine so there would be no difficulty if there were four non-elected representatives because there would then need to be 12 on the committee instead of nine. The number would increase with each non-elected representative. That would be a fair system, and I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the idea.

Mr. Dalyell: I feel strongly on this issue—basically for one reason. One of the truths about education committees is that the elected members have a great deal more authority in dealing with officials. I am not one who thinks that officials are bad. I believe that Scotland is well served by educational officials. Nevertheless, one wants members on the committee who can cut some ice, and who have a position from which to deal with officials. The non-elected element probably feel diffident about trying to


impose their will. They can be asked what is the basis of their power. The truth is that the rough and tumble of election gives some basis of power. It is like an old-fashioned annointment.
Anything that restricts the numbers of elected members is bad for democracy. On those grounds, I come out very strongly in favour of a higher elected element. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be right to decide to press the amendment to a vote. I hope the Government will reflect on the matter. I do not see why they should not give way. No one will crow. It is a matter of some importance.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I support the amendment, for the reasons already expressed. I see no justification for having a provision in the Bill—admittedly, not mandatory—allowing a local authority to appoint up to half the members of the education committee from non-elected elements. I see no justification with an important committee of this nature, for not having a substantial balance of elected members.
Clause 159, dealing with the social work committee, provides that at least two-thirds of its appointed members shall be members of the authority. The rule for social work should be the same as for education. It is true that the Bill provides for specific representation of outside interests on the education committee. I am not happy that we should have three persons representing religious interests, as a later amendment suggests, rather than the two for which the Bill now provides. But whatever we may think about that, it is recognised that there shall be outside interests on the education committee.
However, for good democratic reasons, and the kind of reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), there should be a substantial majority of elected members on the committee. The present drafting is wrong, and I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I support what has been said by the three hon. Members who have spoken. When we discussed this matter at considerable length in the Commission, I remember, there was a strong view within the Commission that perhaps it was wrong to have outside interests

within the committees. Eventually we concluded that it was impractical to do otherwise for a variety of sound practical and political reasons.
I certainly go along with the view expressed by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It was said in our discussions—and I recollect the view, expressed as it was with a great deal of force—that outside interests are always free to come to the elected member or to the authority, to state their views. It is not just a question of voting which is important, but a question of contact and the influence which breeds from contact.
I think the Opposition Front Bench proposal to alter the proportion as between 50 per cent. and two-thirds is perfectly fair and reasonable, and one that the Government should consider. No hon. Member on this side of the House would say that the Government had yielded, or crow if they do. It is a question of recognising the importance of responsibility in local government and the fact that the responsible elected element should and must be dominant.

Mr. Ross: If I speak now, I may even be able to persuade the tripartite Under-Secretary in charge of education. He is much more ready to be persuaded than many of his Scottish Office colleagues, which shows a confidence in himself and his judgment which we welcome.
Clause 57 gives the new authorities power to appoint committees. They are under no obligation to do so. They "may" appoint committees; it is up to them. But, if they do,
at least two thirds of the members appointed to any such committee … shall be members of that authority".
That means that two-thirds must be elected members, if the authority uses its discretionary rights.
But the situation is different when we come to education, which is probably one of the more important functions of the new regional authorities, and undoubtedly one of the more expensive. Anyone who has tried to deal with the rate support grant appreciates that the great bulk of it is related to education. We read in Clause 123 that
Every education authority shall appoint a committee"—
it must do so, whether it likes it or not. The Government are laying down in this


new era of freedom for local authorities that it shall appoint a committee
to which … all their functions as such authority shall stand referred.
In regard to this function, more important than any other, the Government do not say that two-thirds must be elected members, as they do with any other committee. They say "at least half". This is a bit much. I do not cast any aspersions on the justice or otherwise of changes that have been made by the Government, but they have brought some of the difficulties on their own heads. If they had left religious representation alone they would not have got into what we call in Scotland "moger". They have also made a change in respect of teacher representation, which used to be discretionary but it now mandatory.
If we believe in the elective principle, it is unfair to penalise the local, elected representatives because of those changes. They are the people who will eventually carry all the responsibility. The people who elect them think that they are responsible. To suggest that we can put up with just half the members of an education committee being elected, with the rest being appointed in one way or another, is totally wrong.
I do not know whether I have got through to the Under-Secretary. There was a time when I called him the silent senator for Dumfries, but now he is in the places of power.
We are confronted with such an obvious wrong that I am sure the hon. Gentleman will rise immediately to put it right. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend should have a little confidence in at least one of the Scottish Office team. He has shown us in his handling of other Bills that he is prepared to be persuaded.

Mr. Monro: I should like to set out the position and then comment on the interventions, which I found helpful. There is extraordinarily little between us, as will emerge from what I say.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) moved the amendment, as usual, in a most helpful manner. He said that the amendment required two-thirds of the members of the education committee to be elected as opposed to at least one-half as the

clause stands. Rightly, hon. Members have pointed out that under Clauses 57(3) and 159(6) other committees require two-thirds of their members to be elected representatives. In the past, education authorities have always been an exception.
Section 108 of the Local Government Act 1947 provides that at least a majority of the committee must be elected members, which is, in effect, much the same provision as the one we are talking about. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said, the stipulation in the clause is permissive and not mandatory, and this situation has been current for a long time.
The history began before 1929 when the education committee was a separate elected body which attracted the services of various categories of people with a particular interest and experience in education, including clergy of all denominations, who did not want to take part in local government generally. After 1929 it was considered desirable that the good service provided by non-elected members should continue, and it has continued ever since.
The important point is that the provision is permissive. In practice few education authorities have gone anywhere near having a 49 per cent. representation on the education committee of non-elected representatives.
If, as I hope, the House accepts a subsequent amendment, there will be five co-opted members of an education committee of which three will represent the churches and two the teachers—which I believe to be a move that is widely welcomed throughout the profession in Scotland. This would mean that in smaller authorities, where there are five co-opted representatives, there would be a minimum committee size of 15, and should that authority wish to have a parents' representative, a university representative or a representative from industry, for every extra co-opted member it would have to have on the committee two elected members. This would sometimes produce a much larger education committee than many people think desirable, to the extent that it might be necessary to call upon elected members to serve on the education committee to make up the numbers, whether or not the elected members wished to serve.
In this important issue of the establishment of education committees, I believe that the authorities will feel their way carefully. They will start with a substantial majority of elected representatives, having the satutory five co-opted members and perhaps a few more. I do not think that they are likely to put themselves in jeopardy of being voted down by co-opted members. I have served on local committees for some considerable time and I do not think that is a practical possibility. The elected representatives would always be quite certain that they had a substantial majority over all the co-opted members put together.

9.0 p.m.

Dr. Miller: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not miss the very important point which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) has brought forward. The hon. Gentleman says that the elected members would always have a majority My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside was directing the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the minority elected representation could be minimal. In other words, the majority party would have to have such a high proportion of the representation as to make minority representation almost impossible or at least extremely difficult. That is the point which my hon. Friend was making and to which the hon. Gentleman should direct his attention.

Mr. Monro: I should need to have a computer to work out the possibilities which the hon. Gentleman indicates. I understand the point which he is putting home to me—namely, that if there were five co-opted members and five or six members of one party there would have to be a substantial number of members representing the majority party in order to maintain overall majority. That point can be covered by the clause as it stands. The clause is entirely permissive as to the number of co-opted members over and above the five. It leaves an immense amount of scope for the majority party to arrange the selection of members so that it can still retain overall majority, including the five co-opted members.
Perhaps Opposition Members were feeling that the narrow majority of one or two was mandatory. In fact, it is not, The selection of the committee is entirely

permissive. I do not think that majority parties in local government and able people from all parties are likely to make the mistake which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove indicates they might make. I like to feel that we are trying to give, as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said when we were talking about finance on the last amendment, as much responsibility as we can to local authorities. This is an instance when we can rely on the local authorities to make the right selection in the best interests of education.
There is extraordinarily little between us and perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside might, on reflection, be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I specifically asked about the authority of non-elected members. That is a matter of importance.

Mr. Monro: I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about that. I have been on a local authority and I appreciate exactly the point which he is making. Perhaps there is more weight behind what an elected member says. However, that does not move me from my argument because the elected representatives which the hon. Member is talking about will have a substantial majority. I do not think that we want to remove the opportunity of having gifted people co-opted to an education committee. Such people will help to raise the standard of education in Scotland. The clause provides for a great deal of flexibility. There is an opportunity for local authorities to work the clause to their own advantage and with no danger to the majority party. That is why I do not feel that there is much between us on this.

Mr. Dalyell: If these gifted people exist, in the trade unions, industry or the universities, why do they not seek election? If they are as gifted as all that, someone will elect them to do something.

Mr. Monro: This is one of the mysteries of the human race. There are many gifted people in this country who do not seem to want to be Members of Parliament. Some of these people have a limited amount of time and would perhaps be prepared to put wholehearted


effort into education but not to do the run of the mill work of housing, finance and so on. We should not cry down on these people. That is why we should maintain the flexibility in the clause. We should not restrain the local authorities by laying down the facts and figures in too much detail.

Mr. Carmichael: I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. He overlooked the fact that there will be plenty of scope in the educational set-up and the de

cisions made over the structure of education to bring in gifted people at all levels, when they will be more telling than on the education committee. On the education committee, which is concerned with the structure of education, the elected people should have a clear majority. Therefore, I would ask my hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 175.

Division No. 166.]
AYES
[9.07 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Allen, Scholefield
Golding, John
Moyle, Roland


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Murray, Ronald King


Armstrong, Ernest
Gourlay, Harry
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Orme, Stanley


Barnes, Michael
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Padley, Walter


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hardy, Peter
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pardoe, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hattersley, Roy
Pavitt, Laurie


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Boothroyd, Kiss B. (West Brom.)
Horam, John
Probert, Arthur


Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hunter, Adam
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Buchan, Norman
Janner, Greville
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n &amp; R'dnor)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Caliaghan, Rt. Hn. James
John, Brynmor
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rowlands, Ted


Carmichael, Neil
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Sillars, James


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Silverman, Julius


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Coleman, Donald
Lambie, David
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Concannon, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Stallard, A. W.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Lamond, James
Steel, David


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Slonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Cronin, John
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lomas, Kenneth
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Tope, Graham


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McBride, Neil
Torney, Tom


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
McElhone, Frank
Tuck, Raphael


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Machin, George
Varley, Eric G.


Deakins, Eric
Mackenzie, Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin


Dempsey, James
Mackie, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Doig, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.
Wallace, George


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Eadie, Alex
McNamara, J. Kevin
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Ellis, Tom
Marquand, David
Whitlock, William


English, Michael
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ewing, Harry
Meacher, Michael
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woof, Robert


Forrester, John
Molloy, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Harper.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nott, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Astor, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Parkinson, Cecil


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Haselhurst, Alan
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Havers, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hicks, Robert
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Biggs-Davison, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Blaker, Peter
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Holland, Philip
Redmond, Robert


Body, Richard
Holt, Miss Mary
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hornby, Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bowden, Andrew
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Rost, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Augus, N&amp;M)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Scott, Nicholas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jessel, Toby
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Sinclair, Sir George


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Soref, Harold


Churchill, W. S.
Jopling, Michael
Speed, Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Spence, John


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sproat, Iain


Cockeram, Eric
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Kirk, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Stokes, John


Costain, A. P.
Lamont, Norman
Sutcliffe, John



Lane, David
Tapsell, Peter


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Dean, Paul
McMaster, Stanley
Tebbit, Norman


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Dixon, Piers
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Madel, David
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Dykes, Hugh
Marten, Neil
Trew, Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mather, Carol
Tugendhat, Christopher


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Waddington, David


Fidler, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Miscampbell, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Moate, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Fookes, Miss Janet
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wilkinson, John


Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fowler, Norman
Montgomery, Fergus
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gardner, Edward
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Gibson-Watt, David
Mudd, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Murton, Oscar
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hn. George


Green, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Grylls, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Gurden, Harold

Mr. Hamish Gray.

Question accordingly negatived.

9.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move Amendment No. 100, in page 72, line 12, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this amendment, I understand that it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 265, in line 14, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 22 and insert:
'be nominated by a meeting of representatives of the churches and denominational bodies having duly constituted charges or other regu-

larly appointed places of worship within the area, one of whom shall be a member of the Church of Scotland, and the others of different denominations appropriate to the locality'.
We may also discuss Government Amendment No. 101.

Mr. Campbell: The background to the two Government amendments, Nos. 100 and 101, is that in order to recognise the position of the Church of Scotland Government amendments were accepted by the Committee but with certain misgivings. There was a fairly strong body of opinion which felt that the provision as altered was too heavily loaded in


favour of the big battalions. Every regional education committee would have a statutory Church of Scotland representative and a statutory Roman Catholic representative; but it lay at the discretion of the regional councils whether any of the minority churches—some of which will be of considerable significance in certain regions—should be represented at all.
In some ways the Government would have been glad to rely on the discretion of the future local authorities. Most if not all of the existing local authorities are well disposed to Church membership and appoint more than the statutory minimum, and we have no reason to believe that this will not happen in future. On the other hand we can understand the desire to have the security of at least a third statutory place which could be filled where appropriate by an appointee from a significant minority Church. The amendments now proposed therefore provide for a third statutory place and require the local authority when filling the third place—or in the islands areas, both the extra places—to have regard to the comparative strength of all the Churches in its area while at the same time bearing in mind that it has already provided for the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church. The effect of this is to allow the local authority to appoint a representative of a minority Church where there is a significant one, but not to compel it to do so where there is no such minority. We believe that this is the fairest provision that can be devised, and we believe that it will be generally acceptable to the Churches.
I now comment on Amendment No. 265, in which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and his hon. Friends suggest an alternative arrangement for appointing Church representatives to the committee. This arrangement has a certain simplicity about it which commends it, but it suffers from two disadvantages to which I must draw attention because they are major disadvantages. In the first place, an arrangement of that sort would effectively withdraw the guarantee, given to all the Churches concerned in 1929, and secured under present legislation, that wherever the denominational schools were transferred to the system of public

education, the Church concerned could have a place on the education committee. As I said in Committee, the only truly denominational schools still in existence are the Roman Catholic schools and that is why the Bill provides specifically for a Catholic nominee.
It would be possible for the proposed meeting to nominate a Catholic representative, but there would be no certainty of that being done. We are clear that it would be wrong to diminish this established right of representation, at any rate without the agreement of the parties concerned. There is no legal obligation in this, but in our view there is an absolute moral obligation given what has been the position since 1929. This point has been touched on in our conversations with the Church of Scotland, and it agrees that the position should be left as it is at present.
The second drawback is that an arrangement on these lines would put the Church of Scotland in a most invidious position. At most, or all, of the meetings of Churches held under present legislation to nominate Church representatives, the Church of Scotland inevitably deploys the main voting power. This would continue to be the case and it would, therefore, rest largely in the hands of the Church of Scotland as to whom should be nominated. At present this presents no problem because the Church of Scotland can nominate representatives of its own Church and in general does so except in a very few areas, such as the Highlands where the claims of the Free Church are very strong.

Mr. James Sillars: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that his idea, as put forward, would fail if he accepted the idea that the Churches nominate and that the general electorate chooses the nominee at the end of the day?

Mr. Campbell: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's view. He has expressed it in Committee. We regard this as a matter to be dealt with by the representatives of the Churches, as proposed, rather than to be made a wider matter as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The Church of Scotland can nominate a second representative of its own Church at present, but this would not be open to it under the proposal in this


amendment because the other two representatives would have to be taken from different denominations even in those areas where, on any reasonable view, it would be appropriate for the Church of Scotland to have two of the three places because of its large majority in the area. The amendment would virtually force the Church of Scotland to exercise patronage in every region and islands area and it would be in a position of judging in every case not only between other Protestant Churches but between the Protestant and Catholic Churches. It would put the Church of Scotland in a difficult position. I am certain that the Church of Scotland would not want to be placed in that position. That is the second disadvantage.
While recognising that the Liberal amendment has simplicity, it suffers from these drawbacks and I commend the two Government amendments which I believe provide the best solution for choosing the statutory representatives for each committee.

Mr. MacArthur: I will not detain the House for long. It is right that I should express on my own behalf and, I am certain, on behalf of some of my hon. Friends, our warmest appreciation to my right hon. Friend for proposing these amendments. He has responded most generously to the comments made in Committee and I feel certain that the Church of Scotland and the other denominations in Scotland will be most grateful for his having given so much thought to the representations which they have made through us.

Mr. Grimond: This is a very sensitive matter. On the other hand, it is one on which I do not feel completely sure of my foothold. I am grateful, I think, to the Secretary of State. I understand that he has increased the number to three—and that, I think, is in accordance with something we wanted done. This is an exceptionally difficult matter, because the religious breakdown in Scotland differs from place to place. I find it almost impossible to draw up a scheme that will suit everyone.
To some extent I can talk only about the place I know. In Shetland, at my last count there were 14 denominations. They include the Bahai and the Assemblies of God. One of the smallest groups

is the Catholics. I do not suffer from an anti-Catholic prejudice. On the contrary, both priests on Orkney and Shetland are great friends of mine. But the Catholics are a tiny congregation.
Am I right in saying that they will automatically have permanent representation. while the other 12 minority Churches, some of which are much bigger, will compete for one place? I do not know how common this is the Highlands. I am sure that it is not common in the West of Scotland.
I take the Secretary of State's objections. The basic objection is that he does not think that Christians can behave as Christians, which is a reasonable attitude. We all know that there is nothing more violent than the internecine fighting among denominations attempting to reach an agreement. We, being optimists—like all Liberals—and thinking better of human nature and, perhaps, Ministers of God, than the Secretary of State, thought that they might come to an agreement. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point.
The right hon. Gentleman must agree that this is a matter about which it is very difficult to draw up a scheme suitable for all parts of Scotland. We do not have complete confidence in our own arrangements. I am not even convinced that the right hon. Gentleman's scheme will do this properly.
May I ask one question of fact? Subsection (3)(a)(ii) speaks of
area of a region.
I am not sure to what that refers. Probably there is no significance in it. As I understand it, this scheme will operate all over Scotland, and the effect will be that the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church will always be represented, while the other churches will compete, so to speak—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I think that I can save time by pointing out that there is no automatic Catholic representation in the island authorities. That meets the point.

Mr. Grimond: It does, indeed. I thought that that might be the case. In the West of Scotland there will be automatic Catholic representation. For instance, in the South Hebrides, where there are a great many Catholics, they


will have representation there, probably because there will be three representatives. This goes some way to meet our point. I still think that this is a difficult subject in respect of which to reach an agreement that will suit all denominations. I doubt whether we have heard the last of this.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his "flag lieutenant" if I may put it that way, for the painstaking way in which they have dealt with this extremely difficult problem. Many of us have received representations from various parts of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) will be particularly grateful, because the predominant denomination in his area will be covered by the amendment. Other denominations in my area will equally be covered. I heartily support the amendment, and believe that in all the circumstances my right hon. Friend has done an excellent job.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: It would be wrong to let this amendment go through without at least one hon. Member saying that it does not have the wholehearted support of the House, or, indeed, the country. I shall not oppose it, although I did so in Committee, in a way. Members of the Committee will know my views. In my opinion the perfect solution is to have no outside representatives of any kind on any elected committee.

Mr. Harry Ewing: My hon. Friend is not now propounding Labour Party policy.

Mr. Brown: I did not claim that I was. I merely say that I think I represent a fairly large body of outside opinion. I hope that most of the enlightened opinion is in the Labour Party, but if my hon. Friend is claiming the rights of conservatism and thinking for the Labour Party, that is his point of view.
All I am saying is that it is surely highlighted by the reasonable attempts of the Government to meet the situation—and I give them marks, if that is what people want—and by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who indicated the geographical variations that exist in religious communities. And

I would think that the most effective way of giving expression to them is through the party democratic process. There is no need to spell out what I mean by that. Then, if there is a need to have some special religious set-up in terms of education, it can be done quite easily by establishing relationships between the local authority and the various denominations in whatever degree they exist in the area in which the local authority is operating. I know I am in a minority on this but I think it right that there should be some record of the fact that it is not a unanimous vote.

Mr. Sillars: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), I do not think this should go through. I will not vote against it but I do not think it should go through as if what the Secretary of State has suggested as an amendment and the amended clause are accepted unanimously here. I do not think that it is good enough for him to come to the Box and argue, as he will do on the amended clause, that some bodies in Scotland have an exceptional right to representation on education authorities but that teachers do not have such a right.
We all know that teachers will stand for election within the teaching profession. That is the way it has been done up till now for teachers to get on to the education authorities. Surely this is a grave departure from the principles of Wheatley, on which we have tried to construct local government and this Bill, that people are responsible to the electors in the area for the way they make policy. It would stretch the imagination to say that the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church and other Churches will not help make policy in educational circles.
I make the point strongly that while I do not object to Church organisations having representation on education committees and accept their reasons and understand why they press for this, I ask why they should be different from other groups in Scotland and not need to stand for election in their own forum of the Church or to face electors and answer questions on educational policy. I am not a churchgoer, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well. In fact, I am an atheist. How can I influence the representatives of the Church of Scotland


or of the Roman Catholic Church taking policy decisions on my educational authority when they are not responsible to me, a ratepayer and an elector?
Surely it would go some way towards resolving that democratic problem if the Churches were forced to put forward more than one candidate and those candidates had to stand for election like anyone else in a policy-making forum.
I shall not seek to divide the House on this, but I think that it is a valid point of view, and so far the right hon. Gentleman has not answered it.

Mr. Maclennan: In the light of the representations I made to the Secretary of State following the very considerable lobbying on this point which I underwent from Churches and churchmen throughout the Highlands, I feel it right to express my satisfaction that he has taken this course. It is certainly true that in the Highland Region particularly this has been a matter of great sensitivity and difficulty. I believe that the arrangements which the Secretary of State has proposed will cause a broad degree of satisfaction, at least in that region.

Mr. Dempsey: Having listened to what has been said by the Secretary of State I would like, even if briefly, to say that I think that his approach to this subject was admirable. He was dealing with a subject which is very touchy to all concerned, especially to us in the West of Scotland. This is an area where one has to tread very carefully—gang canny. It is an extremely difficult situation because when religion becomes involved the atmosphere is always charged. Anyone who is religious has the greatest appreciation of the service which all the Churches give to all the community on behalf of religion in this country, and, if we believe in that, it is important that they should be allowed to play some part in education because religion begins in school, aside from home. I have been approached by all sorts of Churches and all sorts of denominations. I have met their representatives and discussed this matter with them.
We should ensure by this Bill that a provision in a previous Act should again be enacted. The Secretary of State is absolutely correct. After all, one of the

Churches handed over all its schools and we gave our word, and one's word is always one's bond. I am proud to hear the Secretary of State say tonight that he feels that on balance the right thing to do is to ensure that the Churches, large and small, should be represented in education.
I honestly think that he has made an excellent provision in this Bill and it certainly meets with my full approval. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on handling a very thorny problem so very carefully and successfully.

Mr. Ross: Well, he has handled the problem he got himself into. This matter arose on the basis of a rumour that there were to be on the education committees no representatives from the religious bodies and the Roman Catholic Church was very concerned about it because the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of the 1918 Act transferred its schools to the local education committees. That is something which English Members do not appreciate. In Scotland we have no religious schools in the English sense. They all come under the local authorities. That, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) will appreciate, has been of considerable benefit to the education of the Roman Catholic community—

Mr. Dempsey: Yes, I agree.

Mr. Ross: —because we do not have this argument about who pays for what. The ratepayers pay for their schools in the same way as they pay for the denominational schools and there is no problem.
There has not been controversy about this. I do not think I have heard anything about this matter whether from Shetland or Coatbridge or Provan or anywhere at all—until we got this Bill. In other words, everything was going on very well. When things are going on very well one need not change the law. The problem arose out of fears which proved unjustified. A victory was claimed and then in came everyone else saying, "We, too, must have the right to representation". I do not think the Government are to be congratulated on the way they have handled the matter, but they are to be congratulated on the way they had got themselves out of their


difficulty. I will support the now necessary amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 101, in page 72, line 22, at end insert:
'(iii) one person, or, in the case of the education authority for an islands area, two persons, in the selection of whom the authority shall have regard (taking account of the representation of churches under sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above) to the comparative strength within their area of all the churches and denominational bodies having duly constituted charges or other regularly appointed places of worship there;'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Mr. Monro: I beg to move, Amendment No. 102, in page 72, line 32, after 'committee'. insert and of any subcommittee thereof;'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we can take also the Government amendments Nos. 103 to 106 and 150.

Mr. Monro: These are minor drafting amendments required to bring Clause 123 and Schedule 10 into line with Clause 159 and Schedule 20 and to improve Schedule 20. There is no change in the effect of the clause or of Schedule 10 and only a minor technical change in Schedule 20.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 103, in page 72, line 37, leave out 'and 9' and insert, ', 9 and 10'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Schedule 10

ARRANGEMENTS BY EDUCATION AUTHORI TIES FOR DISCHARGE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS

Amendments made: No. 104, in page 175, line 25, leave out 'or sub-committee'.

No. 105, in page 175, line 27, leave out 'the appointing authority or'.

No. 106, in page 175, line 29, leave out
'or sub-committee as the case may be'
and insert
'and of any sub-committee thereof;'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Schedule 11

AMENDMENT OF THE EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1962

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 107, in page 176, line 35, leave out from 'following' to end of line 39 and insert:
'paragraph shall be inserted at the appropriate place—'.
This amendment is necessary because in the Bill we have put into the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 a reference to and definition of "school councils". The Committee took out the reference to school councils but overlooked the removal of the definition from the 1962 Act which had been put in. This puts the position right by removing the definition.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 131

ROADS

Dr. Miller: I beg to move Amendment No. 358, in page 76, leave out lines 2 to 5 and insert:
'131 (1) The local highway authority for the purposes of the enactments set out in Schedule 14 of this Act shall be a regional or islands council in respect of special roads, trunk roads and principal roads and a district council or islands council in the case of all other roads; and those enactments shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in that Schedule'.
I apologise for intruding in the debate, not having been a member of the Committee that deliberated on the Bill. However, it is perhaps something of a change to have someone who did not take part in the Committee's deliberations speaking at this stage.
The amendment seeks to ensure that district councils shall have authority for functions that are envisaged in the Bill as being the responsibility of more powerful and larger areas—the regions. For example, it might be felt that as the district is the area that is most closely involved with rates or housing, it should be the authority in which rights are vested regarding, for example, the collection of rates and the building of houses. It is, perhaps, in keeping with democratic ideology and, indeed, the feeling, which I believe is shared by all hon. Members, that areas in this country should have a


considerable degree of devolution, that this should apply no less to Scotland, which is not merely a region or area of the United Kingdom, but a nation in itself.
There is a considerable unwieldiness in the regional set-up in many respects. The general feeling is that there should be devolved to a smaller area, which has closer contact with the realities of any particular situation, the duties, obligations and rights which at the moment are vested in the regions, not the districts.
The amendment is designed to give district councils power to obtain delegated functions not for major road developments—I concede that major road developments must be undertaken on a regional basis—but for the development and unkeep of minor urban roads. This function has been delegated to corresponding district councils in England.
9.45 p.m.
The White Paper on the reform of local government argued somewhat along the lines that the Government intended that the rôle of the district authority should be very different from that of the regional authority, which would formulate and carry cut the broad strategy and administer the large-scale services, while the district authority would concentrate on caring for and improving the local environment.
The Under-Secretary should bear in mind that if that principle is to be attained it is essential that the district councils should have sufficient technical content to enable them to employ competent professional manpower. There is a tendency to imagine that what is bigger must necessarily be better. I do not suppose that the Under-Secretary is entirely thirled to that point of view. However, there does not seem to be any good, logical, or rational reason why Scottish districts should not have the same powers in respect of roads and highways as English districts. I ask the Under-Secretary to think carefully along the lines indicated in the amendment.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) has raised an interesting point. It really comes down to a matter of opinion based on the principles of the local government reform on which we are embarking.
As the hon. Member has said, it is quite correct that we want to see the districts with a good, sufficient and powerful task to do, sufficiently attractive that it will attract young people to serve on the districts and sufficiently large a task that it will attract proper staff, and so on. But the consequences of doing as the hon. Gentleman would like in this amendment are rather more far reaching and consequences about which we ought to be very clear before we risk agreeing to them.
The use of roads is something in which all of us partake, and we do so in a way that does not lead us to regard different pieces of road as acceptable at different sorts of standards. The advantages still seem to lie with a unified responsibility for the maintenance and construction of roads. If we are to have a unified responsibility, which I think we should have, it is at the level of the regional or islands council that we ought to have it.
First—the Wheatley Commission recognised this—road planning is intimately related to other functions that are conferred on regional and islands councils, such as strategic planning, industrial development, and transportation. There would be substantial disadvantages if the major responsibility for roads were at a level different from that of responsibility for these other services.
The question of the use of manpower is very important. Road construction and maintenance, traffic management and road safety are fields which involve great expenditure and the use of increasingly sophisticated techniques, particularly in the planning and design of roads and in traffic management. A very real problem is the supply of suitably qualified professional and technical staff to enable these functions to be discharged. Many local authorities are now unable to fill their complement, and this, in turn, is reflected in the speed with which the need for road schemes can be assessed and the necessary schemes prepared.
Centralisation of roads functions in the regional authorities will by no means cure all the problems, but it can make a substantial contribution through the efficient employment of the limited supply of highly qualified professional and technical staff.
The amendment is not necessarily directed at minor roads. Particularly in


the cities, the functions proposed to be given to district councils could call for a good deal of highly skilled supervision, with the result either that skilled manpower would be fragmented or that the maintenance of quite important roads might suffer.
Another difficulty which emerges is that if the amendment were accepted there would be changes of responsibility at local authority boundaries which could result in the adoption of undesirably different standards which the road user would find difficult to under-stand. This, with the other factors already mentioned, would put a heavy premium on co-operation between the various authorities concerned. I would not suggest that the different authorities would be unreasonable, but all this would inevitably take time and add to the problems of operating a co-ordinated road policy in a particular region.
I recognise that the amendment is well thought out and that what lies behind it is a firm conviction that there is wisdom in the spreading of these functions as widely as possible. I recognise that there will be large and efficient district councils who could discharge the functions proposed in the amendment efficiently. But that will not always be the case and the basic objection to the amendment is that a system of divided responsibility will lead to a wasteful use of resources sooner or later.
Clause 56 already gives local authorities a general power to delegate functions to other local authorities. It seems, in the light of what the hon. Member said. that in places where the district council could make a significant contribution to the road network, that would be a good way of proceeding. If a regional authority sees advantage in delegating the roads function to a district council I would have no objection to and would very much approve of such an arrangement being made. I think there might be much less danger of an unhappy working relationship between two authorities in a free agreement rather than if an arrangement were imposed.
I hope that the hon. Member will feel that it has been worth while raising this matter, but unified control of roads is desirable and there is a perfectly good

procedure for allowing a delegation of functions from regions to some districts as appropriate, which would be the best way of achieving what I know he would like to achieve.

Dr. Miller: As the Under-Secretary has twice mentioned the distinct possibility of the delegation of power from one local authority to another, I feel that I should withdraw the amendment. I am not entirely satisfied that the whole subject of centralisation is sufficiently in the mind of the Government in respect of the dangers which it could bring and I should like to feel that decentralisation, the devolution of power, is something which could be enshrined in legislation.
However, since the Under-Secretary has twice indicated the willingness of the Government perhaps even to encourage local authorities to divulge some of these powers, I regard the situation as relatively satisfactory. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 108, in page 76, line 3, leave out:
'the enactments set out in Schedule 14 to this Act '
and insert:
'any other enactment (whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act)'.

No. 109, in page 76, line 4, leave out 'those enactments' and insert:
'the enactments set out in Schedule 14 to this Act'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Schedule 14

AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO ROADS

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 110, in page 191, line 21, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we may discuss Government Amendments Nos. 114, 144, 149, 151, 175 and 176.

Mr. Younger: The amendments are purely drafting, to correct an error in references to Clause 207.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 111, in page 194, line 23, at end insert:
'In section 124(4) (Board's obligations at level crossings with roads other than public carriage


roads), for the words "county council and a town" there shall be substituted the words "regional or islands"'.

Clause 132

BUILDING

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 360, in page 76, line 14, leave out 'Highland'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we may also discuss Amendment No. 361, in Clause 161, page 95, line 32, leave out 'Highland'.

Mr. Maclennan: The purpose of the first amendment is to transfer the functions exercisable under the Building Acts which the Bill gives to the regions in the Highlands, although elsewhere in Scotland, apart from the Borders and the South-West, these functions are to be exercised by the district councils.
The background to the decision is the White Paper, which departed from the recommendations of the Wheatley Commission. It was a serious misjudgment by the Government. I have received representations about it, of which the Minister is aware, from a number of local authorities in the Highlands, not only those lying within my constituency.
The point of departure for me is the view expressed in paragraph 744 of the commission's report that the elected regional authority for the Highlands and Islands should have the same statutory functions as the others in other parts of Scotland. The difficulty stems from the Government's decision to have a substantially larger number of districts in the Highland areas than those recommended by the Commission, the consequence of which is that a number of the new district authorities in the Highlands will be extremely small. By transferring the responsibilities to the regional authority the Government are running a serious risk of reducing the district authorities to bodies which will not have the status to attract people of the right calibre to stand for them or to attract officials of the required expertise.
The importance of these functions relates to their connection with planning. The commission made an unanswerable case for having some planning functions

in every authority, both regional and district. It felt that the planning functions were essentially those which gave the authority
a definite stake in the overall welfare of its area.
I should like to inscribe in the record of our proceedings part of paragraph 714(a), in which the commission says that in its view local planning, redevelopment, control of the countryside, housing improvement and libraries are functions suitable to be exercised at the second tier. It continues:
Planning in particular gives coherence to all the local functions, and especially to those concerned with amenity. More than any other function, planning entitles a local authority to regard itself as having a definite stake in the overall welfare of its area.
That is an unanswerable point of view. Fears are being expressed in the Highlands that, albeit the districts are to enjoy the housing function, without some local planning powers including those under the Building Acts, they will not be bodies—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Local Government (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Maclennan: The district councils will not be bodies which are capable of attracting the highest quality people.
I accept the view expressed to me in discussion by the Under-Secretary of State that some new district authorities are so tiny that they cannot reasonably be expected to sustain a full planning staff. That is unanswerable, but it should have been dealt with within the framework of the Bill under the provisions of Clause 56 which empower two or more local authorities to discharge functions jointly. The best solution might have been to allow districts in the Highlands to discharge some of these local planning powers jointly if they choose so to do. That would have got over the problem of the extremely small size.
Amendment No. 361 relates to the provision of library facilities in the Highlands. Here again, the Government have


departed from the Wheatley recommendation that library facilities should be exercised by the second tier authorities although, in fairness, the commission had in mind larger district authorities in terms of population than those that have come about as a result of the Government's decision to increase the number of district authorities in the Highlands.
The provision of library facilities in the Highlands is an intimate function which depends largely on an understanding not merely of the needs of the region but of the needs of the communities in which travelling libraries operate. It is a peculiarly personal service in the Highlands in a way it is not in other parts of Scotland. For that reason, if for no other, it would make sense to allow the districts to operate that facility. Again it is possible for the districts to come together to discharge the function so as to increase the resources available.
The Government could easily concede the amendment without breaching an important principle. As I have had singularly little success in my efforts to persuade the Government—an experience common to most of us—I hope that on this small matter the Government will break their duck.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has strong feelings about these matters. I will take the two functions separately, bearing in mind that on Amendment No. 362 we shall have a chance to discuss the principle.
On the question of building control, Clause 132 as drafted is linked to Clause 170 which provides that in the Highland, Borders and Dumfries and Galloway regions the regional council shall be responsible for both district and regional planning functions.
Paragraph 35 of the White Paper on the Reform of Local Government in Scotland indicated that as building control went naturally with local planning, both functions should be the responsibility of the same authority—that is to say, the regional authority in the Highlands, Borders and South-West.
The case for transferring the building control function to the new regional authority in the Highland region stands or falls with the transfer of the local

planning functions. Without prejudice to any further debate which we may have, let us suppose that we were to agree, which I know we do not, that the planning function should go to the region. I suggest that the building control function should go with it and that that function should settle the matter without prejudice to any discussion which we may have on planning affairs generally.
Since the publication of the White Paper, "The Reorganisation of Local Government in Scotland" most of the representations about the proposed arrangements for public libraries have been directed to having them made a regional responsibility in all regions. Among the possible amendments to the Bill which the Convention of Royal Burghs sent to all members of the Scottish Standing Committee was one proposing that the library service should be operated by the district councils in the Highlands, the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway.
Although the Government agree that the library service is intended mainly to serve local needs and is therefore in general appropriate to the district, regard must also be had to the importance of providing an adequate service. The district authorities in most of the Highland districts would lack the staff and other resources to provide a satisfactory service.
The Report of the Secretary of State's working party "Standards for the Public Library Service in Scotland" considered that a population of 30,000 was needed for a basic library service. The Royal Commission Report considered that the Scottish Library Association's suggestion of 100,000 "except in the more remote areas" was "a reasonable target". Of the eight Highland districts five will have populations of about 20,000 or less. While Inverness District, with a population of about 50,000, might well run an adequate library service most of the other districts, on that criteria, could not.
It may be argued that if the Island authorities of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles can run their own library services, so could some of the Highland districts. However, we must recognise that each of these areas is relatively isolated and that the arguments for making them responsible for libraries do not apply to mainland areas.
I hope that I have indicated that I appreciate the concern which has been expressed about these two functions. However, we must see the building control function as linked to planning. The point which has been made about libraries is, I think, a matter of opinion which I appreciated is held quite firmly by many people. We must ensure that

the size of authorities is sufficient to provide an adequate service and with the best will in the world, and even with the enthusiasm which I am sure would be brought into it, I do not think that the Highland districts are large enough to provide the full range of services which we want to see provided in those areas.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 15

AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO BUILDING

Amendments made: No. 112, in page 197, line 45 after 'occur' insert 'and the words "or (2)"'.

No. 113, in page 197, line 48 at end insert:
'() in subsection (7) the words "or subsection (2)" shall cease to have effect;'.

No. 114, in page 198, line 15, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.

No. 115, in page 198, line 36, leave out 'Highlands' and insert 'Highland'.

No. 116, in page 198, line 37, after 'Galloway' insert 'region'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 117, in page 198, line 46, at end insert:
'In section 30(1) (local Act provisions), the proviso shall cease to have effect.'.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 213.

Mr. Younger: These amendments are consequential upon the repeal of Section 2(2) of the Building (Scotland) Act effected by paragraph 3(a) of this Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 118, in page 200, line 18, at end add:
'In the Fire Precautions Act 1971, in section 17 (consultation by fire authorities),
(a) in subsection (1)(ii), for the word "buildings"there shall be substituted the word "local", and the words "section 1 of" shall cease to have effect;
(b) in subsection (2), the words "or buildings authority" shall cease to have effect;'.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 178 and 226.

Mr. Younger: These are drafting amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 133

PREVENTION OF RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 266, in page 76, line 22, after '1951', insert 'except that of the Tweed River'.
I hope that we can dispose of this amendment equally briefly, although it is a matter of some importance to the Borders area.
Clause 133 underwent radical and total change in Committee. When the Bill was before us on Second Reading, the river purification boards were, under the Clause, to remain largely as they are at present, but reconstituted under new authorities. Largely as a result of representations from the river purification boards themselves, the Government and the Committee were moved to change all that and to agree that, in principle, there should be some separation between the appointment of purification boards and their subjugation to local authorities—partly at any rate on the grounds that, on occasion, the boards would need to be the prodders and chasers of local authorities.
I can understand that, but throughout all that discussion, the Tweed River Purification Board indicated to its own national organisation, to the Government and to me as the Member of Parliament that it was perfectly happy with the status quo. Therefore, this is a probing amendment. I shall be happy to withdraw it if I can have an assurance from the Government that they intend, in exercising their powers under Clause 133(3)—
The Secretary of State shall, by order, divide Scotland into areas (to be known as ' river purification board areas')
—to retain the Tweed river purification area as it is at the moment and that, if at any time they were minded to discontinue that situation, it would be their intention to do so only after consulting the Tweed River Purification Board and the new Borders regional authority.
Any fears—and there were fears—in the area that the board would be removed to Edinburgh were strengthened by a feature in the Scotsman last week, a write-up of some magnificent new office block in Edinburgh, from which, it was alleged, river purification boards would


be controlled from Berwick to the Tay. Over my dead body they will. We do not wish any encroachment on the excellent work being done by the Tweed board at the moment. All we want is a simple undertaking on that from the Government.

Mr. Younger: In its amended form, the clause gives effect to a view strongly put in Committee that there should be a system of river purification boards which would regulate discharges by local authorities into rivers and tidal waters. Under the clause, the existing boards are to be dissolved and new boards established by order, although Government amendments provide that Islands councils should remain river purification authorities in their own right.
The amendment would introduce an arrangement which would not be entirely satisfactory since, while new boards are to be set up by order, the Tweed board alone would continue. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has said that it is a probing amendment. But the assumption behind it is that the Secretary of State, in making the orders required of him under the clause, will include the Tweed catchment area within the area of some larger board.
The clause imposes no requirement on the Secretary of State to create any specific number of boards or to amalgamate existing boards. His intention is to seek the advice of his statutory River Purification Advisory Committee as to the number of boards which should be formed and as to the areas that they should cover.
I think that the assurance that the hon. Gentleman has asked for is that the committee will of course wish to seek the views of all river purification boards. It can therefore be given as an assurance that the Tweed board would have full opportunity to make its views known to the committee before anything were to be done by way of changing its present area and so on.
To accept the amendment as it stands, however, would be to pre-empt the Secretary of State's decision on whatever the committee's report might recommend. It would not be right to do that at this stage.
The assurance I can give, however, is that the board need have no fear that,

before anything were to be done, it would not be fully consulted and would not have ample opportunity to make its views known. I hope that will be some assurance to it.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Steel: With respect, it is not. If the hon. Gentleman would only discard his brief, we should get on better. I did not ask for a reassurance that the board would be consulted. I asked for a reassurance that there is no intention on the part of the Government to do other than retain a river board for the area. That is the only reassurance I seek and the hon. Gentleman has not given it.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman referred to consultation. That is why I particularly referred to it. I could not give a complete assurance that in no circumstances would any change be made because that would be contrary to the brief being given for a completely new look by the committee in this matter. But again I assure the hon. Gentleman that no one need fear that anything will happen without their being consulted. They will have plently of time to make their views known.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 119, in page 76, line 29, at end insert 'and by islands councils'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 120 to 131, No. 179, No. 180, No. 207, No. 208, No. 209, No. 219 and No. 220.

Mr. Younger: These are basically consequential amendments, designed to alter details in the substituted Clause 133 and its associated Schedule 16, which were agreed in Standing Committee on 1st May, and to introduce consequential amendments to Clauses 211 and 212 and Schedule 27.
Under the provisions of Clause 133, river purification functions are to be exercised from 16th May 1975 throughout the islands by river purification boards set up by the Secretary of State. In accepting the amendments in Committee which resulted in these provisions, my right hon. Friend observed that although they had been professionally drafted some details might have to be changed at a later date. I hope that the changes meet


with the approval of the House, the Committee having made a clear decision on the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 120, in page 76, line 30 at end insert 'other than islands areas'.

No. 121, in page 76, line 34, at end insert:
'(3A) An order made under subsection (3) above shall define each river purification board area either by reference to a map or to the line of any watershed or to the boundary of any local government area existing immediately before the making of the order, or partly by one method and partly by another'.

No. 122, page 76, line 41, leave out 'and islands areas'.

No. 123, in page 77, line 8, leave out
'and islands councils, if any,'.

No. 124, in page 77, line 24, after '(4)', insert 'above'.

No. 125, page 77, line 40, leave out 'property'.

No. 126, in page 77, line 41, after 'liabilities', insert:
'(other than those in or relating to property)'.

No. 127, in page 78, line 3, at end insert:
'(5) Before making an order under subsection (3) or (4) above the Secretary of State shall consult all local authorities (including in the case of an order made before 16th May 1975, existing local authorities) and river purification boards whose areas are wholly or partly within the area affected by the order, and the provisions of Schedule 3 to the Water (Scotland) Act 1967 shall apply to the making of such an order as they apply to the making of an order under section 5 of that Act with the substitution of a reference to this subsection for the reference to section 33(4) of that Act'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Schedule 16

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO RIVER PURIFICATION

Amendments made: No. 128, in page 201, line 5 leave out clerk 'and insert proper officer'.

No. 129, in page 201, line 7, leave out 'islands area'.

No. 130, in page 201, line 12, after '1973', insert 'and islands councils'.

No. 131, in page 201, leave out lines 18 and 19.—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause 139

PUBLIC CONVENIENCES

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 336, in page 80, line 6, leave out from 'be' to end of Clause and insert:
'the islands or district council'.
This amendment relates to what might be described as the "Clochemerle" provision of the Bill. Its purpose is to provide that responsibility for public conveniences shall be a function to be exercised by island or district councils only and not, as I understand the Bill provides, by regions and districts. It may be that I have not fully analysed this situation completely correctly, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would state the Government's view.
This function is a local one. The hon. Gentleman may think that public conveniences do not give rise to local controversy but I must deny that. Indeed, the controversy which has raged in Sutherland during the last month over the public convenience in Brora lends particular weight to the point. It has been resolved only by praying in aid the assistance of every local authority representative to come and inspect the site and see for himself how deplorable the original decision was. I think that it is unlikely that such a step could be taken by the regional council based on Inverness, if by some inadvertance a similar decision were taken in the future. Perhaps it is not a major point, but it is important.

Mr. Younger: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this matter raises the most intense controversy, and I respond easily to his request.
Section 5(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 requires any local authority which undertakes to provide a public sanitary convenience to make provision, so far as practicable and reasonable, for the needs of disabled persons. Section 5(2) provides for the suitable advertisement of such facilities; while section 5(3) defines a "local authority" as an authority within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947—that is, a county, town or district council. Clause 139 simply makes the necessary adjustments to section 5(1) to bring it into line with the new system,


by substituting a reference to local authorities under the present Bill—the regional, district and islands authorities.
The 1970 Act has to apply to all types of authorities, because all of them have the power to provide public lavatories; this is usually something which districts and islands authorities would do, but there are circumstances in which a regional council can take the same action. It seems right that it, too, should have the duty to make provision for the disabled and the chronically sick.
I was puzzled about the hon. Gentleman's reason for tabling this amendment. But all sorts of local authorities may find themselves providing these facilities. Therefore we feel that all sorts of them should have the obligation to provide for the disabled and the chronically sick.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for making the position clear, although I am not wholly persuaded about the need for regional authorities to provide public conveniences at all. However, that being the case, certainly they should be empowered to provide for people who come under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 141

SEWERAGE

Dr. Miller: I beg to move Amendment No. 359, in page 80, line 23, at end insert:
'(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above a district council of a district shall have power to undertake the construction and maintenance of public sewers in so far as within their district.
(3) In the case of a sewer or sewerage system which is constructed by or for the time being maintained by a district council by virtue of subsection (2) above, the regional council who are the sewerage authority shall reimburse to the district council any expenses incurred by them in carrying out the works of construction or maintenance necessary to secure the effectual drainage of the district.
(4) The district council of a district who have elected to undertake the construction and maintenance of sewers within their district shall submit annually for approval by the sewerage authority a programme of works required for the effectual drainage of the district together with estimates of capital and recurring costs'.

If there is a sensible reason for transferring the rights, duties or obligations from a larger to a smaller authority, this is one which eminently falls into that category. I cannot imagine a sewerage system which involves a large region more than it does a district. Sewerage is a function which the district itself undertakes. It becomes an onerous, difficult and sometimes an impossible task if the area involved is very large.
There is an element of future thinking in this. At the moment we are dealing with sewage disposal as we have known it in the past and perhaps as we foresee it in the very near future. But I ask the Under-Secretary to cast his mind a little further forward. He may envisage a situation where to become involved in sewage disposal and in sewerage on a large regional scale would be an impossibility. It may be necessary in the not-too-distant future to think in terms entirely of district control.
So far I have been discussing the disposal of sewage itself. However, the discharge of effluent is involved in a situation of this kind. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider the right of purification boards, for example, to work with district councils in respect of the duty which should be given to district councils to purify effluent before dumping it into any kind of disposal system.
Once again I ask the hon. Gentleman to say why it is that in England the river purification boards will make district councils their agents and why that is not spelt out in this Bill?
If the hon. Gentleman can give me the assurance that he previously gave, that there will be the strong probability of the larger region taking the smaller districts into its confidence and relegating to them the rights which I have mentioned I shall be willing to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Younger: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks but not absolutely certain that I entirely agree that it is likely that sewerage problems will become smaller in the geographical scale rather than larger. What I feel is that sewerage systems need to be designed with regard not to particular local government boundaries but to the lie of the land. We would find that district authority boundaries would be unrelated to


such drainage needs in future. There are many examples, of which hon. Members will be aware, of sewerage systems which serve wide areas with sewers traversing what would be the boundary of more than one district.
The hon. Member's amendment would probably introduce different arrangements in different parts of Scotland. The more densely populated and financially strong districts would be capable of maintaining a separate engineering organisation and would take advantage of the powers available to them under the amendment to take over the sewerage systems in their area.
In the more sparsely populated districts such an organisation would not be viable and would probably not arise. It would in any case be up to each district to elect or not to elect to undertake a sewerage function and it might happen that within the same region one district would decide to look after the sewers in its area while the adjoining district would not, and the regional authority might then have to maintain or construct a sewer along part of its length only, leaving it to a district authority to construct or maintain another section. A regional authority might make arrangements for some years to maintain sewers in one district to find that the district at some time wanted to begin to exercise its powers to do so, although the organisation for the work already existed and was functioning satisfactorily.
Apart from introducing undesirable complications in the planning of the service such an arrangement, under which different authorities were responsible for different aspects of it, could result in a wasteful duplication of staff, since it would involve the establishment by district authorities of their own professional organisation for the construction and maintenance of sewers. In short, it seems unsatisfactory that a district should be able to elect or not to elect to carry out a function which is properly that of the region without regard to the appropriateness of this decision to the larger background of regional sewerage requirements.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to have provision for a region to devolve some powers to a district if

both parties wish to do so. The clause allows a regional authority to use its powers under Clause 56 to arrange for sewerage functions to be discharged by a district authority in any case where it might be appropriate that this should be done. Once again I can confirm that I believe that this is an arrangement which can be done under the Bill and one that would certainly, in the appropriate circumstances, have my blessing.

Dr. Miller: I much prefer the Under-Secretary when he is his usual clear and almost ebullient self rather than when he is lost in a verbiage of Civil Service jargon. I was almost constrained to push this to a Division if he had continued with the kind of stuff which his agents had given him to read. I am not seized of the argument that because one district can do this well another might not and we should therefore aim at the mediocrity of the region. I would rather have a district doing it well and if another district was not doing it so well have some method of bringing the recalcitrant district up to scratch.
I would like to set the Under-Secretary right on a point he made at the beginning of his speech. I did not indicate in any way that sewerage problems would get smaller. I said the exact opposite. It is because they are getting bigger that they will eventually have to be tackled at source at district rather than at regional level. The region may be all right for general supervision, but the problems of sewerage and the disposal of effluents will in future become so big that they will have to be tackled at the lower level, the work being devolved to the roots of the problems, as it were. That is what I said.
However, in view of the fact that I have had some assurance that there will be some encouragement to devolve these powers to districts, and as I have ventilated the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 143

POLICE

10.30 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 267, in page 81, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).
I wonder whether it would be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss at the same time my Amendment No. 268, in page 82, line 33, at end insert:
'(5) Any amalgamation scheme proposed must be approved by the existing police boards affected'.
We might also discuss Government Amendment No. 133. They are all about police reorganisation. There is no point in having two debates. Could they all be taken together?

Mr. Speaker: If that is agreeable.

Mr. Steel: Then I have moved the amendment formally.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member wants me to speak first?

Mr. Steel: Perhaps I bad better make my own speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member to move Amendment 267 and he suggested that No. 268 should be taken with it and also Amendment No. 133. Is that the will of the House?

Mr. Ross: We could at the same time take Government Amendments No. 134 and No. 135.

Mr. Speaker: Is that the wish of the House? So be it. The hon. Member has moved his amendment formally.

Mr. Steel: May I be allowed to speak on it?

Mr. Speaker: I will allow the hon. Member to speak on it.

Mr. Steel: I spoke at some length on this topic during the debate on the White Paper. I have just been re-reading my speech with some enjoyment. I spoke at great length and with considerable force as well against amalgamating the Borders police force with that of what was then the Forth Region. I do not propose to weary the House at this late hour by going into all the arguments again.
Since then, the great concern in the Borders about the future of their police force and the proposed amalgamation scheme has not abated in any way. It is the case that among the members of the police themselves there is a majority view in favour of the amalgamation scheme largely on the ground, always set out

fairly by the Government, of increased promotion prospects in a larger force. Against that, the Border force itself remains opposed to the amalgamation scheme and has accepted it only with great reluctance.
What is even more important is that public opinion in the Borders is disturbed at the prospect of losing a very fine local constabulary which could potentially even extend to cover the new district of Tweeddale. I am against joint boards for any subject, except where they cannot be avoided, and I believe that this one could have been avoided. It would have been more sensible not to have the amalgamation scheme.
To give one example, it makes sense from a chief constable's point of view to deploy his manpower to wherever there is a shortage of men, and if he thinks that the citizens of Hawick or Galashiels are law-abiding and not much in need of police he may deploy his force to Armadale or elsewhere where there may be a problem of manpower and where perhaps trouble lies. Thus the people of Hawick or Galashiels, for instance, would lose the services of their police.
In my constituency there are two polic forces and the people in Peebles-shire will still enjoy the same police service as the rest of Scotland even though they do not have the same local identity and local association with the police as the people in the counties of Roxburgh and Selkirk. Alas, it is not Peebles-shire that has been brought into line with Roxburgh and Selkirk. It is Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles-shire that will have the tail end of a police force based on Edinburgh. It is a mistake, and I do not want to allow this opportunity to pass without reiterating that that is the growing, not the lessening, opinion of people in the Borders area.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to get it quite clear that we are also discussing not only Amendment No. 268, in the name of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), but Government Amendments Nos. 132, 133, 134 and 135. If we have a debate on all those amendments together it will be necessary, if Amendments Nos. 267 and 268 are defeated, for


the Government to move the other four amendments formally.

Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), though I disagree with the way that he has done it, has put his finger on a tricky point that arises from the Government's decision to set up a separate Borders Region. It also illustrates the difficulty of getting answers to different questions.
In this instance, having decided to set up a separate Borders Region of only 97,000 people—an area which, in non-numerical terms, is not adequate for certain major services, of which the police is one, the fire service is a second, further education is a third, and aspects of child care a fourth—we get difficulties because, for certain services, it will not operate satisfactorily.
If one goes round any part of Scotland, or any country, and asks people, "Do you wish to govern yourselves; do you feel a local patriotism; or do you want to be governed in tandem with the people over the hill in the next place?", and so on, the answer always is, "We want self-government; we want to run our own affairs." One will find that 90 per cent. of the people will say "Yes."
If one then turns to the services, to the people who know about and carry them out, and asks, "Are you satisfied with a police force working in this area with certain limitations of size, of technique, and of approach?", the answer will be "No."
This is what the people in this area said. Over 60 per cent. of the police force, when asked "Do you wish to amalgamate?", said "Yes." The Police Board said "No", because it will disappear under the scheme and it is the local controlling element.
One finds this situation again and again. If one goes round the Borders and asks, "Do you wish to run your own social work or child care services?", everyone will say "Yes." Then if one goes to the people in the services and asks, "Are you happy to run services which on financial grounds cannot have all the facilities of special treatment for the hard of hearing, special homes for epileptics, special help for handicapped

children?", because all these require a certain catchment area and certain expenditure, the people knowing the situation and running those services and the few people on the receiving end of those services will say that that is not what they want.
This antagonism between the two points of view comes out. I think that the Government have sometimes given in too readily to the local patriotism of people and neglected or not given sufficient weight to the opinion of people who are perhaps not so vocal regarding the standards of service to people.
I presume that the Minister is putting in the clause the amalgamation of the police forces because he expects that the standard of policing in this sense will be better in the larger area. Otherwise there is no case for it. If it is better, I put it to him that the danger is that it will apply not merely to the police, but to the fire service and to those aspects mentioned in the White Paper of child care, further education, and so on.
What worries me is that gradually, bit by bit, service by service, the Borders major services will be amalgamated with the Lothian services, although the political control will remain separate.
Having set up a Borders Region, I hope that the Government will support that region financially so that it is able to run its own services and maintain democratic control over them. The one thing that we do not want is a separate region which loses control to a neighbouring, larger and more powerful region through the medium of joint boards, amalgamations, and so on.
I was never entirely happy about a separate region for the Borders, for those reasons, but having created it the Government must support it by giving to it adequate finance to run its own services.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). He went wider than any of the amendments. I shall try to stick to the police aspect.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) was speaking with his constituency hat on. There was no sign of the Liberal or


sheltered approach in his argument. I hope that he appreciates that although his speeches might be for outside consumption, they do not necessarily impress the House.

Mr. David Steel: I referred back to a speech that I made in the debate on the White Paper, in which I explored at great length the wider argument about the police. I thought that I would not weary the House by repeating it. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to make more impressive speeches, he is tempting me to make very long speeches.

Mr. Brown: I know that the hon. Gentleman enjoys reading his own speeches. I give him the benefit of the doubt. There were some Liberal aspects in the parts from which he did not quote.
It has been typical of many of us—I will not say that it is typical of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles—to say that we are all against joint boards unless they are necessary. If ever there was a cliché, that is it. More and more of us have come around to the view that the Borders as a region is a mistake. I am convinced that it is a mistake, but not just because of some of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian.
Amendment No. 133 highlights what we already knew would transpire—the need for amalgamation. It emphasises the fears that some people have had. The West Region will dominate local authorities in Scotland. That is a bad thing. I support the West Region, but we could have done with a bigger and much more powerful East Region, including the part of Fife that was proposed and the Borders.
If we have a need for a joint board on the police and adequate resources on the Borders to provide some of the other services, I hope that in the future, from experience of joint boards and the need to come together will come the realisation that we should go the whole hog and make it one region.
We are not discussing Amendment No. 139 at present, but I should like to ask a question on that amendment. Is it an improvement on the position of the pres

ent chief constable? Coming into a big force, I should have thought that an assistant chief constable might have been better than a chief in a small tribe.
The Under-Secretary is shaking his head. He should explain not only the purpose behind that—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With respect, we are not dealing with Amendment No. 139. That amendment will be dealt with separately later.

Mr. Brown: I said that we were not discussing it, but I thought that I could save time. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will refer to that matter when we reach that amendment. Will the existing chief constable in the Borders region be better off, worse off or the same by becoming an assistant chief constable in the bigger authority?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I deal first with Amendments Nos. 132, 133, 134 and 135. I shall first try to pay attention to the police aspects of the debate, although I respect what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said and bear in mind what he believes are some of the consequences for the Government in relation to their responsibilities having created the Borders Region.
I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 132 to 135. They follow the undertakings which I gave in Committee as reported at column 2005 to write into the Bill provisions to make it clear where we stand on police reorganisation in Scotland. In other words we are giving effect to what was announced in the White Paper.
May I now turn to the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. In order to save time he did not go through all the arguments he has put forward before about why there should be a separate police force for the Borders. It will not help to go over the arguments why we have rejected requests to that effect. I have visited the Borders police force with the hon. Member and I have met the Chairman of his authority and the others involved. I pay my tribute to the work of the chief constable, Mr. Tom McCallum, and his force. No one has said at any


stage that it is an inefficient force. It is a well-run force. I am certainly sensitive to the feeling about this. The hon. Member has made his position clear. The matter was debated fully last summer and it has been followed up by correspondence since then. I accept that we must not consider simply the views of the police in this. With my responsibilities for the police in Scotland I am equally concerned to take into account the views of the public.
I am particularly clear about the views of the police authority. It has written to my hon. Friend the Minister of State at length about the matter and he has replied. If we were intending to do anything which would hurt the service for the public I should be worried. But in terms of police efficiency—and this is borne out by the views which the chief constable took from the members of his force which showed that they were overwhelmingly in favour of amalgamation with the South-East region—we are embarked upon the correct course. That is borne out by the views of the Royal Commission and the Wheatley Commission. With more and more of the services of the police becoming increasingly specialised, in sheer terms of police efficiency a larger amalgamated force will give a better service to the public. It is becoming more difficult for a force below a certain size to provide these services.
However, this leaves one important matter of public and human relationships to be dealt with—the problem of remoteness to which the hon. Member referred. Many amalgamations have taken place throughout Scotland and that is how the present force has built up.
The police and chief constables are very concerned to see that where there is an enlargement of forces in the interests of efficiency steps are taken to avoid anything that will lose the contact with the public whom they serve in the villages and the towns or wherever it may be. Chief constables are not insensitive to this when amalgamations take place, and I hope that in the amalgamated force of the South-West Region the chief officer, whoever he may be, will be sensitive to the need to serve the public and maintain that contact.

Mr. Mackintosh: Will the Minister recognise that there may be special ground for the fears of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel)? In part I share them, in that the Lothians and Peebles force has, for let us say historic reasons, fallen as an authorised force to one of the lowest in Scotland in ratio of police officers to the population and in expenditure per head. It has one constable for about 630 people, when many others are running at about one to every 500. It would allay many of the fears about centralisation if the numerical strength and expenditure on that force could be raised to the Scottish average.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman raised a point that is new to the debate, but one of which I am aware. The ratio of establishment to population varies between different forces, in the light of the different tasks they have to perform and their different localities. We are conducting review of the establishments of police forces throughout Scotland, in which the Lothians and Peebles force is being taken into account. I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's points in mind. They have also been made to me by no less a person than the chief constable of the Lothians and Peebles force himself, who has a certain concern about the matter. I am not prepared to accept the amendment. I do not reject it out of any lack of sympathy for the motives of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, but nothing new has come up in our discussions to cause me to change our original view as stated in the White Paper and embodied in the Bill. However, I give the assurance that I and the Scottish Office will keep a careful eye on the points raised about service to the public when the reorganisation and amalgamation take place.

Mr. David Steel: This has been a short but worthwhile debate. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) was right in his general point, which he made very forcefully. I have always agreed with his view that in the small Borders Region we shall not be able to supply all the specialties, such as those of child care and schools for the hard of hearing, but the case has never


been made out for the amalgamation of the police force on such grounds.
I agreed with the point of principle that the hon. Gentleman tried to establish, though I do not agree with quite the way in which he put it. If the Government decide to remove powers from the new regions they have created and give them to a joint authority, the onus of proof of the need so to do lies on them. Although general references to efficiency, more specialisation or more equipment have been made in our long correspondence, I have never been able to pin the Government down on the specific advantages of police amalgamation. I can understand that we shall lack other things in the area, but I have never understood the demerits of the police force.
The Government have not proved their case, and I do not think that they can prove that we shall have a better police force through the amalgamation, although I concede that there will be better promotion prospects for the police, which is the main reason why they supported the scheme.
I have great regard for the work which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) has done in Glasgow, but he has the nasty habit of telling us in the Borders what would be good for us. He does it in a rather schoolmasterly way by saying, "If the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles will listen, I will tell him what is good for him". But those of us who represent the area know what are the feelings there, and we are most concerned about the effects of the amalgamation of the police force.
I will see that the Under-Secretary of State's words are duly noted in the area, and I hope that his assurances will be proved right. Let us hope that the amalgamated police force will continue to provide the standard of service to which we have become accustomed.
On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 132, in page 82, line 3, at beginning insert:
'Subject to subsection (1A) below'.

No. 133, in page 82, line 12, at end insert:
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall make an amalgamation scheme under this Act before the relevant date for the police areas comprised in each of the combined areas set out in the following table—

Table


Combined area
Police areas comprised


South-eastern Northern
Borders and Lothian Highland and the Islands Areas'.

No. 134, in page 82, line 25, at end insert:
'by virtue of subsection (1A) above'.

No. 135, in page 82, line 29, after (1)', insert 'or (1A)'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 136, in page 83, line 5, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this we are taking Government Amendments Nos. 137, 138, 139 and 140.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These amendments give effect to the Government's acceptance of a case advanced by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) that it is unreasonable that chief constables, alone of police officers, should have to face the possible loss of their jobs in 1975.
The position is that the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 effectively guarantees to all police constables of ranks up to and including assistant chief constable that in the event of an amalgamation of police forces they will transfer to the new force in their existing rank. The Bill applies these arrangements in 1975. No statutory protection has, however, ever been afforded to displaced chief constables. Police authorities have simply been urged by circular to offer posts at assistant chief constable level to displaced chief constables.
Although the results of this procedure have not been the subject of complaints it has not had to operate in situations involving amalgamations on the scale of that in 1975, where in Strathclyde no fewer than six forces will cease to exist.
To meet this situation, and for 1975 only, Amendment No. 139 provides that each of the new police authorities will be


obliged to offer posts at assistant chief constable level to any displaced chief constable—other than a chief constable who has been appointed the chief constable of a new force—the greater part of whose old force has joined the particular new force. The appointment is required to take effect not later than 16th August 1975. To ensure that there will not be any break in continuity in service, the existing statutory provisions give a displaced chief constable protection in terms of membership of a police force, pay, pension, and so on, for a period of three months after his force ceases to exist.
Amendments Nos. 136 to 138 are consequential and Amendment No. 140 incorporates the necessary definitions required for the interpretation of the substantive amendment.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) asked a specific question about Amendment No. 139. It gives something new, and it is in response to a request made by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland).
The position of a displaced chief constable in the Borders will depend on the relative rank and salary level of an assistant chief constable in the new amalgamated region and the current salary level in the Borders. It is not possible to answer the question more specifically because we do not know what will be the new salary of assistant chief constables in the South-East Region. The displaced chief constable from the Borders would move into the new South-East Region at whatever is the appropriate salary scale for an assistant chief constable in the enlarged South-East Region.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: May I pursue this? The Minister was not paricularly clear. My remarks earlier were addressed specifically to the Borders Region because of the amalgamation specified in the previous Amendment, No. 133, but he is a bit vague about it. He is dealing with the generality of amalgamations of the police service and instanced the West Region.
Are we giving a wide authority here that any displaced chief constable, in any place, will automatically be given the rate for the job as assistant chief constable,

even though, in effect, that may be promotion? Surely it will be open for discussion? The man might not be worth it. A principle lies behind it.
It may be that things go smoothly and there are obviously rights, and we accept that, but it seems to go beyond that. The Minister is saying that he does not know at what point the man will come in. I should have thought that the normal safeguard will be sufficient, to say that a man will not be worse off than he is at present, provided also that he is not a lot better off. The Minister should assure us that this will not be used with such indiscrimination that we are giving a bonus to displaced chief constables.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that if a chief constable is displaced, he becomes assistant chief constable for the new authority, at the rate for the job and that if the rate for the new job is less than his existing salary, he will continue at his existing salary?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Amendment No. 139 is clear, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to read it: "The relevant authority shall offer the chief constable of a police force which ceases to exist on 16th May 1975 (other than a chief constable who has been appointed the chief constable of a new force) an appointment to take effect not later than 16th August 1975 at the rank of assistant chief constable in the relevant new force".
That is the position and they are bound to offer the chief constable that place. He takes it at whatever may be the appropriate salary scale at that time for assistant chief constable. I cannot say now, because it is not worked out, what that salary scale may be, but it will not, I think, give rise to any problems. A person who is a chief constable will be appropriate at least to go in as assistant chief constable.
The chief constable in Caithness has just joined a force in the west with the rank of assistant or deputy.
To the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) I would say that the position is that I cannot say exactly what would be the effect without knowing the precise salary scales, but if the salary scale for assistant chief constable level in the new amalgamated authority is lower than his present salary, that is the salary he will get.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: May I press the Minister? I shall switch to Argyll.

Mr. David Steel: He is not here.

Mr. Brown: That is a help. I do not know the Chief Constable of Argyll but I am sure he is a capable and worthy person. Where is he to go? The Highlands or the West Region? He is qualified to be an inspector in a Glasgow Division at present. Will he be guaranteed becoming assistant chief constable in a force which will be trebled in size and where presumably chief constables and assistant chiefs are paid a rate dependent on the size of the authority? I do not want to be difficult, or to take up more time, but it seems to me that it is over-protection of existing chief constables to write this in, if that is what it means.
Somebody from a small authority such as Argyll—in fact, half of Argyllshire is coming into the West region—is being guaranteed that he will be assistant chief constable not in the Glasgow force as it is now but in the West regional force. That seems to be very generous treatment for redundant chief constables. I wish I could be sure that everyone declared redundant would receive the same treatment.
Unless the Minister can assure me that there are some safeguards and that the provision will not be exploited to the extent that I can see it may be exploited, I am left with the feeling that the provision is over-generous.

Mr. Ross: It may be because I was up until a little later than six o'clock that I am not understanding or reading too clearly, but the possibilities seem confusing. It seems that the important Amendment is No. 139. That amendment gives new protection to a chief constable of a force which ceases to exist. There were no guarantees of anything before. The amendment provides:
The relevant authority shall offer the chief constable of a police force which ceases to exist … an appointment to take effect not later than 16th August 1975 at the rank of assistant chief constable …
If a chief constable is appointed, of course, he will be entitled to that payment. That is fine. That is clear, is not it? But let us have a look at the clause. Subsection 23(1) says:

If the chief constable of a police force which ceases to exist … is not appointed as from the date when that police force ceases to exist … or constable of any rank in any other police force which exists on that date, he shall on that date become a constable of the new force …
Subsection 23(2) says:
While a person is a constable of a police force by virtue only of this section he shall hold the rank of assistant chief constable, but shall be treated for the purposes of his pay, pension and other conditions of services as if he had continued to be chief constable of the force which ceased to exist.
We have been told that an officer must be offered an appointment. Is the presumption of Subsection 23(1) that having been offered the appointment he does not take it? There are two different obligations to the chief constable or the former chief constable of a force which ceases to exist. There is the statutory right to be treated as a chief constable even though there is no appointment and, second, there is the new right that an appointment must be offered.
I hope that between now and another stage the provision can be considered and made a little more clear. I recognise the objection of Amendment No. 139 because there have been difficulties in some parts of Scotland. I fear to think what will happen in respect of the larger areas.
The police authority affected—this will apply, for example, to Strathclyde where six forces will cease to exist—must offer six assistant chief constableships. They need not be accepted. Will there be any conflict with the establishment of the forces? There will be the considerable difficulty of the promotional hopes of some people in the new force if the posts are taken up. We must remember that there may be assistant chief constables existing in some of the present forces. They, too, ill have rights.
This may be accepted as well, and it will be a tricky position. I hope that the Government will watch this carefully. In certain areas near the area that I represent, when three police forces were amalgamated, there was considerable unhappiness in the event, which was not entirely conducive to the well-being of the new force.

Mr. David Steel: If I can make friends again with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), he has raised an important point. In the new


amalgamated Borders and Lothian force, it is relatively simple, because this is a case of two large forces being amalgamated with one small force. But in the west of Scotland the question is much more difficult. Is there a significance in the wording of Amendment No. 139, which says that the chief constable will be offered an appointment "at the rank of" assistant chief constable, not "as" assistant chief constable? Am I reading something into that, or is this wording deliberate?
To come back to the Borders, the area I know, my understanding was that once the amalgamation went through the existing chief constable of the small Borders force would in effect become assistant chief constable in the new large force, with territorial responsibility for the Border areas. Is that belief correct? If so, does that principle apply to the Strathclyde area? Will this be the pattern, or is it merely a device to ensure that the chief constables are given a rank but not necessarily a function, as many chief constables are?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: To deal with that last point first, of course the chief constable will be given a function in the new force when he is offered an appointment in this way. Equally, I cannot say where he would be offered the appointment; that is at the discretion of the new chief constable, whose responsibility it is to deploy his men as he thinks fit. But it is not impossible in certain cases that that kind of situation might arise.
I have to watch what I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) because one quickly finds oneself, almost unknowingly, drawn into commenting on the capabilities of individual chief constables. I would wish to avoid that.
The hon. Member runs into a danger in particularising. We must remember that there are certain chief constables of relatively small forces but they have in that area all the functions and responsibilities of a chief constable. I am sure that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), who represents such an area, will confirm that his chief constable's responsibilities, although perhaps not over such a wide area, are still the same.
So it is not inappropriate in any example that the hon. Gentleman may give that, having held that rank and responsibility, any chief constable is not being treated favourably in being asked to accept a post as assistant chief constable in a larger force.
Although I know the devotion to Glasgow of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, I do not think it quite fair of him to say that the equivalent appointment of a chief constable in a country area is no higher than that of an inspector in Glasgow. I think that perhaps he did not really mean it.
11.15 p.m.
Before the new areas are set up in 1975, the new chief constables will be appointed. Chief constables of the existing forces can apply for new appointments. It is for them to decide. Those who are unsuccessful in their applications will go into a period of suspense, as it were, for up to three months, during which they have the protected status they already enjoy under existing legislation, with the salary and emoluments of their position.
The change we are making is that during the three months period they must be given an offer of a permanent appointment at assistant chief constable level in the new force. They will also have the option of taking early retirement, built into the Police Act. They are not, therefore, bound to accept the offer. But the onus is on the new police authority to make an offer to the displaced chief constable. In past amalgamations, the chief constable had to stay completely in suspense. We do not know of any practical difficulties which have arisen in this context but the chief constables themselves made the request that we should make the new arrangement whereby the onus is placed on the new police authority to resolve the position.

Mr. Ross: In effect, the displaced chief constables have three months in which to make up their minds and are meantime in a protected position, continuing to get their salaries as chief constables. But in these new areas how many assistant chief constables are we to have? Supposing they all took up the offer? We must remember that there are already assistant chief constables in the various areas. Are some of them to


lose their rank in the changeover? Are we to get a superfluity of assistant chief constables? Territorially, the areas are already covered. Are there to be six more assistant chief constables?
If a man accepts an appointment at that rank, he is bound to be paid accordingly. I know that this provision has been made at the request of the officers themselves arising out of past experience, but are there likely to be any difficulties in respect of establishment? Has this matter been fully thought out and discussed within the police service?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are conscious of this point. It could be a practical difficulty. We have looked at the position in discussions with the chief constables and in the Department itself, and we are satisfied that the provision should not give rise to practical difficulties. But I agree that if an existing assistant chief constable were to continue and if an existing chief constable who might be displaced also opted to continue, there could be certain difficulties. This does not take account of wastage through retirement, reaching pension age, and so on both at chief constable and at assistant chief constable level in these enlarged forces.
We are conscious of this. We do not think on our analysis that it should give rise to practical difficulties.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) has already spoken in this debate.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 137, in page 83, line 11, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'.

No. 138, in line 21, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'.

No. 139, in line 39, at end insert:
'(4A) The relevant authority shall offer the chief constable of a police force which ceases to exist on 16th May 1975 (other than a chief constable who has been appointed the chief constable of a new force) an appointment to take effect not later than 16th August 1975 at

the rank of assistant chief constable in the relevant new force'.

No. 140, in line 42, at end insert:
'relevant authority" means the police authority or, as the case may be, the joint police committee responsible for the appointment of the chief constable of the relevant new force;
relevant new force" means the new force to which the majority of the constables of a police force which ceases to exist on 16th May 1975 are transferred'—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 144

FIRE SERVICES

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment selected is No. 269, in page 84, leave out line 22.

Mr. David Steel: In view of the lateness of the hour and the assurances which I have received from the Government, I do not propose to move this amendment.

Amendment made: No. 141, in line 22, leave out 'Forth' and insert 'Lothian'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Clause 145

WATER

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 142, in page 85, line 35, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 39 and insert:

'(1) Regional water boards established under the Water (Scotland) Act 1967 are hereby dissolved and their functions are hereby transferred to water authorities.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the water authority for any area shall be the regional or islands council for that area.
(3)'.
This is a drafting amendment to make it clear that regional water boards will cease to exist when their functions are transferred to the new water authorities and that the new water authority for any area will be the regional or islands council for that area subject to the special "added area" arrangements in certain areas.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 17

AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO WATER

Amendment made: No. 143, in page 209, line 18, leave out 'Forth' and insert 'Lothian'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Clause 146

LOCAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 144, in page 87, line 26, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 151

PIERS AND HARBOURS

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 145, in page 91, line 2, leave out 'district' and insert 'regional'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, it will be convenient if we discuss Amendment No. 374, in line 5, at end insert:
'(2) All rights which are presently vested in the Perth local authority in relation to Perth harbour, all functions relating thereto, and all liabilities to which the local authority is subject in that connection, are hereby transferred to the Perth district council'.
We can also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 146, 147 and 148.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that I can deal with this amendment without disrespect to my lion. Friends and Members for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) and Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), who are both concerned about this matter.
The arguments are fairly well known. The Government's amendments seek to restore the original provisions for transfer to regional and islands councils instead of to district and islands councils of all rights, liabilities and functions, including powers of acquisition, in respect of harbours, piers, boatslips and jetties which at present are vested in local authorities.
The Government have considered the position carefully since the Committee stage, in view of the decision that the Committee took, and we have also considered the further views expressed to us by local authorities. However, we have not seen anything which causes us to change from our original view that harbours and piers are an essential basic element in the exercise of transport functions allocated to regional and island councils under Clause 147 and functions relating to ferries allocated to regional and islands councils under Clause 150. Therefore it would be inconsistent for local authority piers and harbours to be allocated to district councils rather than

regional councils.. This would result in divided jurisdiction for ferries and their terminals. For this reason the transfer to regions was recommended by Wheatley and we have followed this in the Bill.
My hon. Firend the Member for Ban has been particularly interested in the fishing harbour point and has pursued the issue vigorously. We have to bear in mind the facts of the situation. Harbour revenues from the fishing industry are increasingly being collected at the harbour where fish are landed and sold. We believe that regional allocation would facilitate the reallocation of some of these revenues to the associated home ports where fishing vessels are normally berthed and serviced.
At the same time we have had to beat in mind that in the development and administration of harbours there is an increasing need for technical staff and specialised equipment. This is much more economically viable where there are larger units of administration to secure co-ordinated harbour development for transport and fishing purposes.
I appreciate that Perth is to some extent unique in that it will be the one harbour in the Tayside region under local authority control.

Mr. MacArthur: How can something be "to some extent unique"? Perth is totally unique in this respect.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept my hon. Friend's strictures. Perth is unique in Scotland in that it will be the only harbour under local authority control in the Tayside region. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the benefits of the harbour of Perth are not confined to the district of Perth and Kinross. In economic terms those benefits extend over a wider area and it is right that it should be dealt with at regional level.
I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend. Our real concern must be to try not to get the unique answer for Perth but to get the right answer consistent with transport policy in Scotland and to try to preserve the quality of life which my hon. Friend regards as unique. I have read what my hon. Friend said in Committee and have had discussions with him. What is unique about Perth is the element of local interest and control exercised there. I repeat the assurance I gave in Committee that there is


nothing in the Bill to prevent the new regions from delegating some of the functions.
Under Clause 56 it is possible for the regions to appoint a harbour committee and so to involve elected members at local level. I said in Committee that we are prepared to send a circular to the new regions at the appropriate time suggesting that they should try to follow this through, and I repeat that assurance.
I have one small correction to what I said in Committee. I said that we would want to devolve day-to-day administration to the districts. It is possible for the regions to devolve to the districts but I was not thinking so much of that as devolving to a particular committee on which local people would serve. I certainly abide by that assurance.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Is not my hon. Friend bringing in a third tier of local government by doing what he suggests?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No. I merely suggest that it may be appropriate, as my hon. Friends the Members for Perth and East Perthshire and for Banff agreed in Committee, that in some way the day-to-day administration of these ports should be at local level. It is possible under Clause 56 for this to be delegated to the district. It is equally possible for the function to be delegated to subcommittee of the region specific to the port. I urge the regional authorities to adopt one or other of these ways of delegating the administration of these ports.
In the wider economic sense it is important, for the reasons I have advanced, that the control should be at the regional level. I hope that my hon. Friends, who I recognise are concerned about this, will be reassured by what I have said.

Mr. MacArthur: I will try to be brief, but the House will understand that the matter is one of great local importance. I want even at this late stage to try to persuade my hon. Friend to change his mind. The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that he has listened to representations from local authorities since the matter was discussed in Committee. I hope that before the debate ends my hon. Friend will tell me what representations he has received from Perth and what consultations he has held with the local authority in Perth.
My hon. Friend will agree that Perth harbour is excellently managed. Why, then, change the management? Further, the harbour is 22 miles inland from Dundee, in the heart of the country, and serves, not Dundee, but the wide area around Perth. Why, then, transfer responsibility for the harbour from Perth to the region, whose headquarters are likely to be in Dundee or, anyway, nearer Dundee than Perth?
There is an even stronger argument. My hon. Friend described Perth as "to some extent unique". I repeated the sin of tautology by saying that it was "totally unique". We can agree that it is unique, for two reasons. It is unique because it is the only local authority harbour in the Tayside region. More importantly, it is unique because Tayside will be the only region in Scotland with one single local authority harbour in it.
This position was recognised by my hon. Friend in Committee when he said this:
… in the case of transport, it is true that Perth may be the only transport harbour controlled by a local authority within the new Tayside region.
My hon. Friend went on to make a comment about the local authority harbours and said:
But if he considers the position in the Highland region, for example, where there are a number of these harbours, it is obviously right and sensible that there the regional authority, with its wider economic functions, should have responsibility to co-ordinate transport in those harbours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee; 8th May 1973, c. 2147.]
I am prepared to accept that, although I am sorry that the Government have decided to reverse the decision which was reached by the Standing Committee that responsibility for local authority harbours should be transferred from the regions to the districts. Even if my hon. Friend has a case as regards the High land region harbours—if there is a case, it will be questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker)—he certainly has no case for transferring responsibility for Perth harbour back from the district, where it was placed by the Standing Committee, to the region.
Indeed, when my hon. Friend accepted the unique position of Perth harbour he


went on to say that he would be prepared to issue a circular to regional authorities requesting them to devolve as much as possible of the administrative responsibility for these harbours to the districts, and my hon. Friend has been good enough to explain that the powers of devolution are such that authority for the harbours might be passed to some new management body which might represent even greater local control than my amendment suggests.
If my hon. Friend accepts my argument about Perth harbour, which is that it is the only local authority harbour in the Tayside Region, that the Tayside Region is the only region in Scotland with a single local authority harbour, that the harbour is well managed, that it is a long way from Dundee, and that it serves not Dundee but an area inland away from Dundee, I must then ask him why he proposes to introduce this complicated rigmarole which has no guarantee of a successful outcome from the point of view of management of Perth harbour.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Minister and certain others of my hon. Friends seemed to accept that Perth harbour should be locally managed if possible. That must have been one reason for my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion that a circular might be issued. The Committee's decision placed responsibility for Perth harbour back with the district, but now my hon. Friend, in his anxiety for uniformity in the Bill, proposes to give responsibility for Perth harbour—and this applies to all other local authority harbours—back to the region.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is being a litle unfair in saying that I am doing this for the sake of uniformity. That is not the reason that I gave. We are doing this because we believe that because of the economic nature of the functions they are better performed at regional level. I took great care to point out that while it is true that Perth harbour serves the surrounding district, its economic importance extends far beyond the Perth and Kinross district.

Mr. MacArthur: I accept that to some extent, but the vast bulk of the harbour's work is in the Perth and Kinross district,

and my hon. Friend must accept that this is not a harbour that serves Dundee. Because of that, because it is the only local authority harbour in the Tayside region, and because of its unique position in Scotland, there is a strong case for looking at the Perth position separately. If I have misrepresented my hon. Friend I apologise, but I do not think that I have.
We could save a great deal of bureaucratic bother and act with commonsense if my amendment were accepted. Recent events in Tayside since our discussions in Committee—I do not propose to spell out the difficulties now—have made me doubt the effectiveness of any circular which my hon. Friend may send to the Tayside Region. I should prefer the position to be established now, with responsibility for this harbour placed firmly in the district council, and I trust that even now my hon. Friend will reconsider the position and accept my amendment.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Unlike the last time when I spoke in these serious debates, I cannot possibly congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on tabling these amendments.
I do not wish to rehearse at any length the arguments that were gone through in Committee for harbours having district as opposed to regional functions, except to say that I remain convinced, whatever my hon. Friend says tonight, and in spite of the discussions that we have had away from the Chamber, that the harbours, particularly the fishing harbours, in Scotland would be better served by being in the jurisdiction of district rather than regional councils.
When my hon. Friend introduced the amendments he adduced the case of piers and ferries being divorced from each other if the Bill stays as it was amended in Committee. I would not have thought that to be an insuperable difficulty for the draftsman to get over, and I cannot accept that as an argument for voting for the amendment.
Earlier, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development called in aid the Local Government Act 1972 to bolster his case, and was to a certain extent taken to task by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). Under that Statute, which went through


the House at about this time last year, harbours are functions of districts. I do not say that because that has happened in England we must have identically the same position in Scotland, but what I do say is that if the fishermen of Cromer can have their harbour administered by a district authority I do not see why fishermen fishing from harbours in Scotland cannot have their harbours dealt with in the same manner.
I would remind the House that there was in the Standing Committee a clear majority for our amendment, and I confidently invite the House to reject the amendment the Government have proposed tonight.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I support the very strong arguments by my hon, Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker). In the Standing Committee this matter was examined very carefully, and on a free vote majority said the harbours should remain with the district authorities. During the recess I went to have a look at some of these harbours. They seemed to me to be getting along very well. I am quite satisfied that no change is wanted, and, as a Conservative, I tell the House that I am very content with this general principle, that I do not believe in pulling up a thing which is going well to see how its roots are growing. I think the Government are wrong. They have not produced an argument. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Banff.

Mr. Ross: I remember very well the discussion we had in Committee. The vote was nine to seven. Six of the nine who voted against the Government on that occasion were Members of the Opposition side of the House. In other words, the hon. Gentleman must have had the support of two Conservatives. I am sorry the Conservatives have not been able to get their civil war resolved. The saddening sight of it is with us tonight.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) had so little faith in the decision of the Committee that he felt it necessary to propose what, I gather, is an unique amendment in that the harbour is the only one in Perth.

Mr. MacArthur: No.

Mr. Ross: I think that that is one part of its uniqueness.

Mr. MacArthur: No.

Mr. Ross: I am glad the hon. Member is doing his best to get my support!

Mr. MacArthur: I will stop.

Mr. Ross: I was attracted by the appeal—everyone on the Opposition side was—by the appeal made by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker). He started by referring to the support he had had from his town council and he finished by reminding me that I opened the new harbour at Macduff. How could I not throw in my lot with him? I have a copy of the Press and Journal of Friday 15th June, and I want the hon. Member to tell me whether this is true. I do not know whether he has seen it. It is a rather confusing report. The important part is towards the end, because it is specific. Talking about the Macduff Town Council, the article states:
In fact, the town council recently accused Banffshire M.P., Mr. W. H K Baker of mistakenly alleging that they had made strong representations to him for district status.
11.45 p.m.
It then refers to the hon. Gentleman's successful fight in Committee.
And the town council's harbour committee subsequently expressed 'some surprise and concern' that in support of his case he had mentioned strong representations from Macduff. The town council have now written to Mr. Baker and the Scottish Development Department expressing disappointment at the decision of the Standing Committee in favouring district control and also expressing their concern that their views had been misrepresented.
I do not propose to accuse the hon. Gentleman of anything—he will recall that last night I took one of his colleagues to task over this kind of thing—but I should like to know whether this is true and whether he can give some explanation. I assure him that he carries weight with the Opposition—such is the esteem in which we hold him—in support of his general argument.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the first part of that article to the House to keep the balance? I admit that there is a misunderstanding between myself and Macduff Town Council, but it does not negate the whole of the argument that


I advanced in Committee, particularly about the fishermen.

Mr. Ross: I think I said that the first part of this article—

Mr. Baker: That is the important part.

Mr. Ross: It does not make sense compared with the action that has been taken. It states:
Contrary to reports, there is great concern at Macduff that their harbour is likely after all to come under the control of the new regional authority if a Government amendment is successful at the report stage of the local Government Reform Bill.
The Government may be able to tell me whether the Scottish Office has received a letter from the Macduff Town Council expressing disappointment at the decision of the Committee. Is that true?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: I gather from the silent nod in an affirmative direction that that is true. That places the Opposition, and certainly me, in considerable difficulty. That being so, I can do no other than suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite fight this out amongst themselves. I cannot give them any help to resolve the matter in view of this misunderstanding.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
I should like to make the last point clear beyond peradventaure. It is true that the Scottish Office has had representations from Macduff Town Council to the effect that it would prefer transfer to the new region, not to the district.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Have there been representations from any other town councils on this matters?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall be going on to deal with other points, because I was asked a specific question by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur).
I do not intend to go over all the arguments again. There is a difference of view between myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Perth and East Perthshire and for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker).
To get the matter in perspective, I should like to mention the feeling that

has been expressed about this matter by different harbour authorities and others in Scotland. I address myself particularly now to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison).
This matter has been raised on the Floor of the House initially in relation to three harbours: Macduff, Buckie, and Perth. Latterly Macduff has been eliminated, so the argument relates only to Perth and Buckie. These are two harbours that are involved in this argument, two out of 218 local authority marine works in Scotland, the majority of which are owned by county councils, together with a number of local authority harbours outside the Highland counties which are not classified as marine works.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South to keep this matter in perspective. We are talking about two harbours out of 218.
The other point is that of the local authorities which control these harbours throughout Scotland we have received objections to our proposals, as they were originally in the Bill, from nine of them. We have had objections from Macduff—which has withdrawn them specifically since the Committee stage—from Buckie, Kirkcudbright, North Berwick, Perth, St. Monance, Arbroath, Pittenweem and Nairn. However, in regard to persistence in their objections to our proposals, we have made our position clear to those which have made objections, and the only ones which have pursued this further with us in correspondence or through the House and in other ways, are Perth and Buckie. Of the other seven, Macduff has publicly withdrawn from it and the others have not pursued it. We assume that they have accepted this position, although they objected originally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South, in particular, asked us to keep things as they are. Some of us would like to do that. There are some hon. Members who would not like to reorganise local government. But a consequence of reorganising local government is that we cannot leave things as they are, as there will not be county councils left. Therefore, one has the choice of which level of government it goes to, whether to the district or to


the region. The Government have proposed that it goes to the region. Of these 218 harbours only two have persisted in their objections to its going to the region. Therefore, it cannot really be said that we are overruling people's wishes. We are quite clearly going in the way in which those who have interests in these harbours wish us to go.
It is for these reasons that I ask the House to reject my hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary said that Macduff has changed its mind. If that is so, it is fairly obvious that the impression that it gave to its Member of Parliament he truly reflected to us. It would be quite wrong for Macduff to suggest that he deliberately misled anyone. That is not something that he would ever do.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I would be less than honest if I did not say that there was a genuine misunderstanding on my part and, I think, on the part of Macduff Town Council as well? I should like to think that I am not entirely to blame. The point that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) raised is that the whole essence of the argument from Macduff, as I see it—I shall always maintain this—is that it wants local control.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 146, in page 91, line 7, leave out first 'district' and insert 'regional'.

No. 147, in page 91, line 7, leave out second 'district' and insert 'regional'.

No. 148, in page 91, line 10, leave out 'district' and insert 'regional'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 153

OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES

Amendment made: No. 149, in page 92, line 36, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Schedule 20

ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF SOCIAL WORK FUNCTIONS

Amendment made: No. 150, in page 221, line 7, at end insert:
'and of any sub-committee thereof;'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Clause 164

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES

Amendment made: No. 151, in page 96, line 28, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Clause 170

PLANNING AUTHORITIES

Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move Amendment No. 322 in page 99, line 3, at end insert:
'provided that the Secretary of State may by order devolve planning powers from any of the general planning authorities to any of the district councils within the three regions, if so requested by both the regional authority and district authority concerned'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it it will be convenient also to discuss Amendments No. 362, in page 99, line 1, leave out 'the Highland region'; and No. 381, in page 99, line 3, at end insert:
'Provided that in the Borders Region, the planning authority shall be entitled to co-opt members of the District Council of Berwick and Tweed so as to support the continuance of existing cross-border planning by the Eastern Borders Development Association'.

Mr. Johnston: The Secretary of State will obviously realise that this is a variant of new Clause 10 which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) moved yesterday. It is much more limited, much more restricted and much more permissive, however. It represents a final attempt to persuade the Government to write into the Bill a provision which would permit flexibility in the treatment of local planning powers within the three regions where these powers have not been conferred upon a second tier. Because it is narrower in effect than the clause moved yesterday I submit that the Government would yield very little in accepting it.
It is worth reminding the Government that there is a provision similar to this in the English Local Government Act—I believe in Section 110. That allows a second tier authority to apply to the Secretary of State for a change of function of this kind from the top tier to the lower tier, and, therefore, there is perfectly good and very recent precedent for this sort of measure.
I have said on previous occasions that I should be happier if the amendment were not necessary, but we are now faced with the almost completed structure. It will be virtually completed tonight, subject to any changes which may be made in another place. The Government must accept that there is considerable unhappiness within the Highland, the Border and the South-West regions. Perhaps it is of least importance in the Borders, where there is perhaps more pressure for a unitary authority and for the development of community council powers. It is so small that it does not make a great deal of sense to have district councils and certainly it would not make much sense to have a district council employing such powers.
Equally, within the Highland and South-West regions there are probably at the very most three, perhaps four, districts which would be able to carry that sort of responsibility. The most outstanding example is Dumfries. There is also Inverness. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), one of the Under-Secretaries of State, is present, I see. He looks doubtfully at me when I mention Dumfries as though I am infringing his copyright. There is also possibly Ross and Cromarty and possibly Caithness, but they are marginal. In the South-West Kirkcudbrightshire would be too small and the rest of the districts in the Highland region would also be too small.
The question is not even whether the Government are prepared to accept that local planning powers are conferred upon particular districts at this stage because they do not need to agree to that now. The proposal is merely to write into the Bill that with the agreement of the district, the region and the Secretary of State the change may be made. I do not regard that as a heavily demanding requirement to place upon the Government, because all sorts of safeguards are built into such an arrangement. But it would give a great deal of satisfaction to a number of people in at least the Highlands and the South-West, and would inject into the Bill an element of flexibility that it lacks.

12 midnight.

Mr. David Steel: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness

(Mr. Russell Johnston) for having been out of the Chamber when he began his speech. I should like to make it clear that I have my name attached to the amendment purely and simply because of representations made to me by the clerk of the Border Burghs Convention. I am not wholly in agreement with its members on the issue, but it was their view that possibly the district councils of Roxburghshire and Ettrick Forest were large enough to have planning powers, and that the possibility should be outlined in the Bill. They felt that this was particularly so if any change in the status and capacity of the districts of Inverness and Dumfries were agreed. They did not want to feel that they were left behind as the sole poor relations of district authorities in Scotland.
I undertook to put forward their views. I am not fully convinced of them, but I think that the amendment achieves a satisfactory compromise by admitting the possibility that in the light of experience the Government may wish at some time to transfer planning powers to the larger district councils in those areas.

Mr. Mackintosh: My Amendment No. 381, which is linked with Amendment No. 322, is on a slightly different issue. But it deals with the question of planning authorities and, in particular, the planning authority in the Borders. It suggests that powers should be given to the Borders region planning authority to co-opt members of the Berwick and Tweed District Council
so as to support the continuance of existing cross-border planning by the Eastern Borders Development Association".
It is a probing amendment. I am asking whether the Government accept the continuance of the targets they inherited from the previous Labour Government, which were a kind of bi-polar development in the Borders, one end centred on the Galashiels area in the central Borders and the other on Berwick-upon-Tweed.
The Labour Government put a great deal of effort into the matter, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), who got the English and Scottish authorities together. We committed the then Government to virtually a doubling of the population of Berwick-upon-Tweed and


to special assistance through the Development Commission and the Eastern Borders Development Association, which was to make a stellar development around Berwick-upon-Tweed, with advance factories, housing growth and special assistance for Berwick-upon-Tweed to serve a hinterland on either side of the border and produce a widespread development in that area.
That was possible because the association was not an official body, but was a linking together of local authorities on both sides of the Borders to work through the Development Commission, which gave access to certain Treasury moneys and powers to build advance factories, and therefore committed the Government to an expansion of the area which could occur above local authority boundaries.
Do the Government accept the continued target for the expansion of the Eastern Borders? To make sure that the enlarged Border region will not be solely on the Scottish side for planning purposes, can it bring in people from the enlarged Berwick-upon-Tweed district on the English side to make sure that the physical and land use planning of the area fits in with the economic planning which the association can pursue? Will this part of the objective of the new Border region be allowed and encouraged, as well as the more obvious and clear-cut objective of the expansion of the purely Scottish section focused on the central Borders, when the Border region will obviously wish to continue to pursue?

Mr. Maclennan: I do not propose to elaborate yet again the arguments I advanced in introducing new Clause 10 and in speaking on earlier amendments which dealt with planning. When we take exception to the view embodied in the Bill that the district councils are not capable of exercising planning functions, the functions we are talking about are those which are described in Schedule 22. They include the preparation of local development plans, day-to-day planning control, enforcement of planning control and certain other relatively minor unsophisticated matters. These are functions that have been exercised by very small local authorities. The Secretary of State knows that in my constituency the burgh of Thurso—a much smaller

authority than some of the districts that are to be created—has exercised some of these functions and has done a good job.
Although I entirely accept the argument that structure planning should be a regional matter, I regard it as unacceptable to deprive the districts of all control over planning functions. That view was specifically rejected by the Wheatley Commission, which said that planning functions were the central question for local authorities, and identified local authorities with the interests of the area. By depriving local authorities of those functions we leave them with very little that matters.
Before we conclude this stage of the Bill, the Minister should say how he sees the district authorities operating without these functions. There is widespread concern about this. It is not enough for the Minister to say that the functions will be better exercised at regional level without considering the impact at district level. In answering earlier debates he did not deal with this question.
I support Amendment No. 322, although it is slightly less satisfactory than new Clause 10 would have been. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will be more sensitive to the feelings of the people in the Highlands and elsewhere that the district authorities will be powerless bodies of little prestige and of such status that they cannot hope to attract people of appropriate quality to service them.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) said, this is a variation of the argument advanced when we discussed new Clause 10. He is proposing a system which already exists in the Bill—that is my main message to him. Clause 56 provides that a regional authority may arrange for any of its functions to be discharged by a district authority. Provided that the district authority agrees, planning powers may be handed over.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the third party—the Secretary of State. That point is also covered, because the Secretary of State would not be in a position to stop such a transfer of planning functions under Clause 56 if the regional authority and the district authority were agree upon it. I agree with the hon.


Gentleman that the Bill should have this flexibility, and it is included in Clause 56.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difference between the functions of districts in the Highland region and in other regions. This, as has been explained before, is part of the decision taken that we should have more districts in the Highland region than would be warranted in population terms but that while there should be more, because of the geography and the distances involved, because the resources would not be as great as those of a district in the populated central area of Scotland, functions have not been provided in the same way as for district; in the main regions of Scotland.
I do not go along with the hon. Member in suggesting that district authorities in the Highland region will feel that they are in some way inferior or that there will be a dearth of work to do in housing. There will be a great deal to do because housing is one of the most pressing problems in the north of Scotland because of the oil industry and the increased demand, and because of the pressure on the construction industry. I have my constituency near the hon. Gentleman's, and I do not have the same feelings as he does on that.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) is probing an interesting position about the town of Berwick. Under the last Conservative Government, the co-operation taking place across the border was considerable. The Eastern Borders Association was doing fruitful work in bringing planning across the border between Berwick and the neighbouring area in England and the area around in Scotland. This has continued. While we support what has been going on, we do not feel that in a Scottish Bill we can try to go beyond the border of Scotland.
The Wheatley Commission, while referring to recommendations about the Berwick area, concluded that any change in the national boundary was a constitutional matter beyond its remit. We also feel that in this Bill we are reforming local government in Scotland and could not bring in questions affecting England, but we agree with the general concept of co-operation in that area in planning and development.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the Secretary of State seriously suggest that the power to co-opt one or two representatives of the planning department of Berwick-upon-Tweed to work with the proposed authority across the border is a constitutional question? The Government should relax on this sort of thing and give way. We just want to institutionalise what is going on in an informal way.

Mr. Campbell: This is happening and is being encouraged, and if we try to write into the Bill a large amount dealing with English rather than Scottish matters we may run into unnecessary troubles. This is already happening and can be encouraged in other ways without trying to put something in the Bill to draw attention to something which should be encouraged.

Mr. David Steel: The Minister has still not answered. The point the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) made was whether the planning authority had power to co-opt somebody to the meetings. It does not matter whether they are from England, Scotland or anywhere else. The English question does not arise.

Mr. Campbell: It is up to those in Berwick to do what they can on the advice received but it is not necessary to write this into the Bill. It would be dealing with parts of England in a Scottish Bill.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman said that the essence of my amendment is contained in Part V of the Bill. In fact, it is not. It may be my fault for using the word "devolve" in the amendment. Part V deals with internal organisation, whereas I was talking about the transfer of a function from one authority to another. There is, therefore, that distinct difference.
The second difference is that even if it were a question of internal organisation the initiative for the change in Part V can come only from the regional authority. I hoped that the Government would accept in my amendment that the initiative should come from either the regional or the district authority. I still hope that the right hon. Gentleman might suffer from the waves of flexibility which overcame the Under-Secretary of State last night. Admittedly they did not overcome


the hon. Gentleman very frequently and they were not prolonged.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I believe that the difference between the wording of the amendment and the provisions in Clause 56 are not very great. I agree that the initative would have to come from the regional authority. I believe that that is right. In any case, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) said, there would have to be the agreement of both authorities and the Secretary of State. I do not think that there is a difference.
The hon. Gentleman also seems to have been hit by a wave of flexibility. It was in his own memorandum of dissent from the Wheatley Report that he recommended that districts should not have planning functions.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 22

PLANNING FUNCTIONS

Mr. Lawson: I beg to move Amendment No. 243, in page 223, leave out lines 25 to 36 and insert:


1.
Survey
Section 4.


2.
Acquisions, etc.
Sections 102 and 109 to 1114


3.
Other functions
Sections 117 to 120'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendments.

No. 244, in page 233, leave out line 39 and insert:


1. Survey and Structure Plans
Sections 4–8.


1(a). Local plans
Sections 9–13'.

No. 231, in clause 171, page 99, line 8, leave out from 'authority' to 'prepare' in line 10 and insert 'shall'.

No. 232, in page 99, line 12, at end insert:
'(1A) Notwithstanding that a general or regional planning authority have carried out their duty under subsection (1) of this section the authority may, at any time, submit to the Secretary of State a fresh report on their district'.

No. 233, in page 99, line 20, leave cut from 'it' to end of line 22.

No. 234, in Clause 172, page 100, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

No. 235, in Clause 174, page 101, line 23, leave out subsection (3).

No. 236, in page 101, line 33, leave out subsection (4).

No. 237, in page 101, line 36, leave out subsection (5).

No. 238, in page 101, line 41, after 'general', insert or 'district'.

No. 239, in Clause 175, page 102, line 1, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
'(1) A regional planning authority may assume the functions of a district planning authority within their district in relation to the preparation and submission or adoption of a structure or local plan if in their opinion the fulfilment of the planning policy proposals set out in the report on their district submitted to the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of section 171 of this Act will be adversely affected by the failure of the district planning authority to prepare and submit or adopt an appropriate structure or local plan. This subsection applies to the alteration, repeat or replacement of a structure or local plan as it applies to the preparation and submission or adoption of such a plan'.

No. 240, in page 102, line 22, after 'to', insert 'structure or'.

No. 241, in Clause 177, page 103, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 242, in Clause 181, page 105, line 2, leave out from 'advice' to end of line 8.

Mr. Lawson: It is appropriate that all the amendments standing in my name be taken together. They all relate to one point. I have no intention of delaying the House at this late hour.
It will perhaps be agreed that the Bill stems from the need to have comprehensive planning. It might be said that that is the core which runs through the Bill. Although planning has often been mentioned there has been very little discussion about planning.
I took the precaution several days ago of giving to the Under-Secretary of State an excellent document which had been prepared by the planners of Scotland. In my opinion, it is an exceedingly well drafted and clear document. It describes certain matters which the planners regard as important and which have been entirely omitted or not understood at all. They point out that Wheatley drew a distinction between what Wheatley and others have called strategic planning and structural planning.
The point is made in the document to which I have referred that the Bill seems to be based upon a total failure to understand that there is such a thing as structural planning. The document quotes a


couple of paragraphs of Wheatley of considerable importance to which perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will refer. It uses those quotes to show how detailed structural planning is. The point is made that structural planning is very detailed. This is seemingly accepted by the Government and their advisers in regard to the districts in the Strathclyde Region. These districts, which are substantially larger than many other regions, will be in a different position. The document says:
If, for example, Strathclyde Regional Authority were to be responsible for producing the plans which identified such things as traffic access points, public service terminals, main concentrations of shops and offices and conservation areas, traffic-free zones and action areas in the many urban areas throughout its Region, one shudders to think how long it would take these plans to be forthcoming, yet this is the degree of detail which it is proposed should be encompassed by an urban structure plan. It is suggested that none of these items bears any relevance to the essential elements of a strategic regional plan.
The suggested amendments stem from the thought that, certainly for a region like Strathclyde, which will cover half the population of Scotland, structural planning, if this is what it means, will be far too detailed.
The document asks that, instead of this, the basis for action should be the strategic plan. This is sensible. I hope that the Minister will tell us and those planning officers who have to carry out this work that he accepts the argument and will if, not tonight, at least in another place, make such adjustments as are needed to meet the excellent argument of those officers.

Mr. Dalyell: I should still like to be clear, after all we have gone through, precisely what is meant by "strategic planning" which is a marvellously grandiose phrase. Strategic planning to me means central decisions such as the bringing of British Leyland to Bathgate, or a major project to Hunterston. These decisions are made not by an authority in Scotland but by a central decision of the British Cabinet in Downing Street or Great George Street. Even at this late stage I should like to be clear precisely what the phrase means. These terms are still mixed up with obfuscation, and I should like to be clear that the Government know what they mean by them.

Mr. Younger: I agree very much with those last remarks. That is what leads to this problem, and I am glad that we are discussing it. The different terms in planning matters are used in different senses by different people at different times. What is more, bridging the whole process of local government reform was the introduction of new Planning Acts in 1969, half-way through the process of the Wheatley Commission producing its report, and leading to legislation. As a result, different sets of people have talked about different conceptions at different times and meant different things.
Paragraphs 820 and 821 of Wheatley can be taken to imply that structure plans should be done by district authorities, but they do not reflect the precise information of what will be contained in structure plans or local plans or who should be responsible for each. Paragraph 819 makes this clear and warns against too literal an interpretation of the use of the terms "structure plan" and "local plan" in the report. Consideration of this whole question by the commission was substantially complete before consideration of the 1969 Planning Act, which first provided for structure and local plans, was complete.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) expressed his views about structure plans. He wondered what they should contain and how much detail they should give. He referred to his planning friends, and no doubt he has discussed this with them. He knows that there is an interim Scottish manual which is in rather more general terms than the equivalent English manual. This is because no Scottish local planning authorities are as yet preparing structure plans, and because of the local government reorganisation in Scotland we thought it right to wait before specifying in too much detail what is appropriate for structure plans and what is appropriate for local plans until we can see the formal pattern of local government planning machinery that we are going to have to deal with.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that structure plans and all that they are intended to cover may or may not be meant to cover whole regions such as Srathclyde, or that indeed they may or


may not be intended to confine themselves to matters appropriate to what is sometimes called "regional strategy"—another term with a half-way meaning across these definitions.
If the hon. Gentleman means by that that from Section 5 of the 1972 Act, which indicates broadly what structure plans are intended to cover, they are enabled to cover whole regions or confine themselves to matters of regional strategy he is correct. No regional authorities existed or were in prospect when these provisions were first enacted in our planning legislation. The Bill also recognises in Clause 172 that any structure plan need only cover part of a region. Indeed, many of them will probably only do so. But I could not from there take the long step to saying that structure and local plans should be the responsibility of district authorities instead.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to be difficult, but can we have an example of a structure plan covering part of a region? My trouble is that I think that this is a lot of gobbledygook.

Mr. Younger: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman means an example of an area of my own selection or whether he wants a description of what a structure plan consists of. It is a very difficult thing to answer off the cuff. It would take a long time. But he will know that the difference between these plans is basically that a structure plan—it is obvious to him but not to everyone—does not normally consist of a picture, map or drawing as such but is the description of a plan describing the general characteristics of the various part of the area to which it is referring.

Mr. Lawson: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that no one has properly worked out what is meant by "structure plan"? That is the difficulty. Why not attempt it? Why not say that the conception of a structure plan or structural planning was produced when much smaller areas were being thought of but that now that we have these very large areas and large groups of people the conception has to be taken further? That is all that these people I referred to are asking for.

Mr. Younger: I do not disagree but that is very much what I have been saying. I hope the House will absolve me from giving a dissertation on everything regarding planning at this hour. It would not be appropriate for me to do so and I do not think I would carry the House with me if I did it. I am trying to relate the hon. Gentleman's amendments to the specific questions which he tried to ask. But if we want a general and broad debate on all aspects of the new planning systems, descriptions and structure plans, we shall have to take an opportunity on another occasion. I could not possibly do that at this stage.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Dalyell: Let it be registered that this is precisely the deep worry that many of us have about the Bill. What the hon. Gentleman has said, candidly and honestly, is that this business of planning has not been thought out. I think that there is a great deal of pretentious verbiage used by people who select grandiose phrases without knowing what they mean in concrete form. I am against pretentious verbiage because it creates confusion and muddle.
At half-past midnight on the second day, after what some of our colleagues have been through, it is just not good enough for the Minister to say that we shall have to leave any further discussion to another occasion. Unless we are clear on the crucial problem of planning and know what we are about, I do not think that it does any of us very much credit to pass the Bill.
It might be interesting to ask why more attention has not been given to it. But if at the end of the day we cannot have these terms defined, this is a recipe for muddle and confusion.

Mr. Younger: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. If we have a debate on all aspects of modern planning, I shall take part gladly and willingly. But I suggest that if I were to launch into a dissertation on this now, I should be most unpopular with many hon. Members. It is a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to castigate me and to make out that this is because I do not know what I am talking about, when he must know how unpopular I


should be if I undertook to do what he asks.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not blaming the Minister solely. I am blaming myself as much as anyone else. Far too many of us have left it very late. I have been extremely inhibited about it personally, for good reasons or bad. I think that the Wheatley Commission assumed that the economies of scale always operated and that bigger was better. In all our discussions it has come out that many hon. Members have said that that by no means follows in the context of local government.
I feel inhibited about it because I served on the Committee which considered parts of the Finance Bill where many hon. Members sweated away for many sittings working very hard. At the same time, the fact is this assumption of the Wheatley Commission that the economies of scale operated. In all the discussions what has come out is that in terms of local government this is by no means self-evident. What was thought to be self-evident may not be true.

Mr. Younger: I can see the hon. Gentleman's worries. I have had many of them myself at times.
I content myself with saying that the hon. Member for Motherwell, who has a deep personal interest in these matters, has done a great service in raising them and in sending his memorandum to me, which I found very interesting.
It is very desirable that we have an opportunity to discuss this in full, but I hope that it is agreed that we cannot embark upon it now. I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell for raising these matters, but his general proposition that structural planning should be done at district level in future is not one that I could support. We have to go for the three tiers of planning document which I envisage coming from the Bill—the structure plan, the regional plan and the local plan. I think that that is the right pattern to fit the majority of cases, as well as for the new local government set-up.

Mr. Lawson: My purpose was to draw this aspect to the attention of the Government. I did not expect very much more from the Under-Secretary. I appreciate his difficulties. It may be that

on another occasion we can go more fully into this. At present, in view of the time and in view of the undertaking, so far as it is an undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 173

AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS BLEATING TO APPROVAL OF STRUCTURE PLANS BY SECRETARY OF STATE.

Amendment made: No. 153, in page 101, line 13, at end insert:
'(2) For the purpose of preserving the existing law in relation to local plans, the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (4) of section 12 of the Act of 1972 (which, amongst other things, applies section 7 of that Act with modifications where the Secretary of State has directed that a local plan shall not have effect unless approved by him):—
(4) Where the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (3) of this section, the planning authority shall submit the plan accordingly to him for his approval, and—

(a) the Secretary of State may, after considering the plan, either approve it (in whole or in part and with or without modifications or reservations) or reject it;
(b) in considering the plan, the Secretary of State may take into account any matters which he thinks are relevant, whether or not they were taken into account in the plan as submitted to him;
(c) subject to paragraph (d) of this subsection, where on taking the plan into consideration the Secretary of State does not determine then to reject it, he shall, before determining whether or not to approve it—

(i) consider any objections to the plan, so far as they are made in accordance with regulations under this Part of this Act;
(ii) afford to any persons whose objections so made are not withdrawn an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by him for the purpose; and
(iii) if a local inquiry or other hearing is held, also afford the like opportunity to the authority and such other persons as he thinks fit;
(d) before deciding whether or not to approve the plan the Secretary of State shall consider any objections thereto which have been considered by the authority, but he shall not be obliged to cause an inquiry or other hearing to be held into the plan if any such inquiry or hearing has already been held at the instance of the authority;
(e) without prejudice to paragraph (c) of this subsection, on considering the plan


the Secretary of State may consult with, or consider the views of, any planning authority or other persons, but shall not be under an obligation to consult with, or consider the views of any other authority or persons, or except as provided by that paragraph, to afford an opportunity for the making of any objections or other representations, or to cause any local inquiry or other hearing to be held; and
(f) after the giving of the direction the authority shall have no further power or duty to hold a local inquiry or other hearing under section 11 of this Act in connection with the plan.".
(3) In consequence of subsection (2) above, in section 13(3) of the Act of 1972 the words from "but as if" to the end are hereby repealed.'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause 176

THE COUNTRYSIDE

Amendment made: No. 154, in page 103, line 3, leave out region 'and insert district'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause 195

INSPECTION AND DEPOSIT OF DOCUMENTS

Amendment made: No. 156, in page 113, line 21, leave out from 'section' to end of line 22.—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause 198

RECORDS

Amendments made: No. 157, in page 114, line 1, leave out 'a local authority dissolved by this Act ' and insert:
'an existing local authority'.

No. 158, in page 114, line 3, leave out 'local authority constituted by this Act' and insert 'new local authority'.

No. 159, in page 114, line 4, leave out 'the authority so constituted' and insert:
'that new local authority'.

No. 160, in page 114, line 6, leave out 'a local authority dissolved by this Act' and insert:
'an existing local authority'

No. 161, in page 114, line 10, leave out from 'other' to 'shall' in line 11 and insert 'existing local authority'.

No. 162, in page 114, line 13, leave out 'a local authority dissolved by this Act' and insert:
'an existing local authority'.

No. 163, in page 114, line 14, leave out from 'more' to first 'the' in line 15 and insert 'new local authorities'.

No. 164, in page 114, line 16, after 'the', insert 'new local'.

No. 165, in page 114, line 18, leave out 'former' and insert 'existing local'.

No. 166, in page 114, line 45, after 'section', insert '(a)'.

No. 167, in page 115, line 3, at end add:
'and
(b) "local authority" includes a joint board, joint committee, river purification board and a water board'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause 200

PROCEDURE, ETC., FOR BYELAWS

Amendments made: No. 168, in page 115, line 26, leave out 'and'.

No. 169, in page 115, line 28, at end insert:
'(iv) sections 301 to 303 of the 1947 Act'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause 203

LIEUTENANTS

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 274, in page 118, line 13, after 'fit', insert 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can also discuss the following amendments:

No. 275, in page 118, line 14, leave out from 'area' to end of line 15.

No. 276, in page 118, line 18, leave out from 'concerned' to end of line 19.

No. 277, in page 118, line 19, at end insert:
'(3) The convenor of each region shall by virtue of his office be one of the Lord Lieutenants for the region concerned'.

No. 278, in page 118, line 20, leave out 'and lieutenants'.

No. 279, in page 118, line 34, leave out subsection (6).

Mr. Ross: At least we are getting a change of subject and are moving away from local government and into the upper strata of lord-lieutenant. The Government decided, rather belatedly, to put this into the Bill. It was not there on Second Reading. I made it my job in Committee to do the Second Reading of it. The Government must have been


relieved when I did not move to vote against the clause, because I do not have the slightest doubt that we would have won.
There are some things here which merit amendment and discussion. Now we have a new breed of satellite lord-lieutenant. The lieutenant is now to be called officially lord-lieutenant. But there are now to be people just below that called the lieutenant. We still retain the appointed vice-lieutenant who acts for the lord-lieutenant and we also retain the order of deputy-lieutenant. It is a bit ridiculous—lord-lieutenant, lieutenant, vice-lord-lieutenant and deputy-lieutenant. For the life of me I still do not know what they all do.
I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, is to reply to this debate. I believe that he has just become a deputy-lieutenant—just to show how non-party these people are, with no connection with politics! I can understand the Minister having been a deputy-lieutenant before becoming a Minister but I find it quite inconsistent with all that has been suggested as the rôle played by deputy-lieutenants that a Minister should be so appointed. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who is the son of a lord-lieutenant can tell us whether this is usual and has nothing to do with the uniqueness of Perth.

Mr. David Steel: I read with interest the right hon. Gentleman's comments in Committee. From his researches is he able to say how many deputy-lieutenants there are on the other side of the House and how many on this side?

Mr. Ross: There is one on this side who is a former lord provost and who was appointed by virtue of his office. I remember another hon. Member on this side becoming a deputy-lieutenant, I think for Edinburgh. For experience of this office we must look to the other side. In Committee we learned that a number of hon. Members opposite were deputy-lieutenants, sons of lord-lieutenants or had some considerable connection with the office.
The most satisfactory position in Scotland obtains in the cities where, by virtue of his office, the lord provost—,this applies in Aberdeen, Dundee,

Edinburgh and Glasgow—becomes lord-lieutenant.
Her Majesty has to appoint for each region
such number of lord-lieutenants as she thinks fit".
As I do not desire to rob Her Majesty of the right of appointment and of choice, I suggest that one of the lord-lieutenants for the region should be the convener of that region. If there are any more, it is purely a matter of appointment by Her Majesty.
There is no indication that lieutenants are to be appointed. If they are not to be appointed, they are not needed. It has not been explained to me why they should be there. We should get rid of them. They will not do anything unless they turn up resplendent in a uniform with a distinctive badge to explain that they are the new breed of lieutenant whenever the Queen descends upon an area.
The deputy-lieutenant never acts as a deputy-lord-lieutenant. It is always the vice-lord-lieutenant who acts as the deputy of the lord-lieutenant. I was at a ceremony not long ago at Newmilns where the Queen's Award for Industry was presented. The original intention was that the award was to be handed over by the Queen's Lieutenant—the lord-lieutenant. As he was ill, along came the vice-lord-lieutenant.
I do not know exactly what a deputy-lieutenant does. We could well do without him. However, I would leave them for the present. For the moment we content ourselves with our proposals in respect of separating the right of appointment by virtue of office, the convener of a region being a lord-lieutenant and the removal from the territorial scene of the new breed of lieutenant.
I hope that the Secretary of State will appreciate that I am in earnest. This is an anachronism. All the considerations of pageantry, and so on, will aptly be met by what will be left.
12.45 a.m.
My hon. Friends have probably heard of the Deputy Lieutenant of the city of Glasgow. As far as I recollect, deputy-lieutenants are appointed by lord-lieutenants. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) perhaps knows a few of them, but over


the years a number of deputy-lieutenants have been appointed. It shows the extent to which there is no great contact with the reality of public life by these people, though there may be some social attachments.
This kind of thing is offence to the modern trend. Until I met him, I could not name the vice-lieutenant of Ayrshire. I could not name any of the deputy-lieutenants. I could probably make a stab at doing so, knowing some of the county families and knowing that there were likely to be one or two among them, but I find it crazy, at this stage in the development of our democracy, that we should not merely be restating the position but reinforcing it and introducing this new and unexplained breed of lieutenant.
If we are not to use them, and if we have not been able to justify their use, they should not be there. It may be that some of my drafting is not complete, but I should be happy to know that the Secretary of State is prepared to accept the spirit of my amendments.

Mr. David Steel: I confess to being puzzled that there is not more interest in this subject than was shown in Committee or has been displayed tonight. I suppose I can claim to represent more lord-lieutenants than any other hon. Member does, because I have three in my constituency. It so happens that I know all three quite well and have a great regard for them and the ceremonial duties which they perform, but, like the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I could not blame any of the vice-lieutenants and, again like the right hon. Gentleman, I could not name the three lists of deputy-lieutenants, but I have noticed whenever I have come across somebody with the letters DL after his name that he is a fairly firm supporter of the Conservative Party.
There is a serious point here. It appears that over the years, possibly for good historic reasons, a network of socially important patronage has been built up in parts of Scotland. I understand that lord-lieutenants are themselves appointed by the Queen, but presumably on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, and they in turn appoint all the deputy-lieutenants. These deputy-lieutenants are chairmen of the JP advisory committees,

and in their turn they appoint all the justices of the peace. One can soon build up a whole chain of patronage which may or may not be abused, and which may or may not be biased, and if we are talking about reform—and that is what the Bill is about—it is inappropriate to continue this system, let alone elaborate it.
If a lord provost is automatically to be a lord-lieutenant, as happens now, then the right hon. Gentleman has a fair point. Why should not the conveners of the new regions, with all their responsibilities, which, I presume, would include ceremonial responsibilities as well, not automatically be lord-lieutenants? I think the right hon. Gentleman has been excessively moderate in his amendment.
If we are to continue the system it is incumbent on the Government to explain rather mare than they have how it works and what these people do, and whether there is any determination on the part of the Government to see that it is, as it ought to be, rather more broadly based than it is at the moment.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: With these amendments which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed he seeks to make changes in two fields. First of all he proposes that convenors of the regions, nine of them, should be lord-lieutenants. Secondly he seeks to remove the subordinate office of lieutenant.
In his remarks he said he finds the system offensive, but I think his criticism is mainly, as is that of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), with the system of deputy-lieutenants and how they are appointed by lord-lieutenants. That is not dealt with in this clause. I note what has been said about it. The concern at the moment is with the appointment of the lord-lieutenants themselves, not the deputy-lieutenants.
I will take each of the suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman has made in the order in which he raised them. The first is the one about convenors. There are some practical difficulties about this because the proposal would add nine lord-lieutenants to the number whereas the proposal in the clause would keep about the same number of lord-lieutenants as there are at present. There would be difficulties, till vacancies arose, and negotiations would be necessary as


to which part of the region should become the convener's lieutenancy, and which of the existing lord-lieutenants should concede territory to him.
It is, I think, accepted, whether one approves of the system or not, that it is part of the duties of lord-lieutenants at present to know well their own areas where they have certain duties to perform, particularly when there is a visit of Her Majesty the Queen. There would be difficulty on the part of the regional convener, who might have experience of one area of his region but might not know about another area and there would then have to be negotiation about who would take over as lord-lieutenant. So there are practical difficulties about the suggestion, whereas the fact that at present the lord provosts of the cities are automatically lord-lieutenants does not raise difficulty because there we are simply continuing a system which already exists.
The right hon. Gentleman himself said that it was unlikely that all his amendments were not defective, but they show clearly what is intended, and the right hon. Gentleman's second proposal is to throw out the new post of lieutenant. The object of the Bill is simply to provide for Scotland what is already in the Act for England and Wales—a subordinate category of lieutenant who could on occasions assist the lord-lieutenant in his duties. We do not see a need for this in Scotland in the near future, but we think that there is merit in having uniformity in the United Kingdom as a whole and having this flexibility in case it should be found useful. That is the reason for taking this opportunity of incorporating it in this Bill, just as it has been done in the Act for England and Wales.
I understand the reasons for the two suggestions that have been made, but I do not think that I can commend them to the House. The first produces the practical difficulties that I have mentioned of nine extra lord-lieutenants and the question of which territories in their regions they would take over. The second deprives the Scottish Bill of the flexibility that has been introduced for England and Wales and the opportunities which might be found useful later for using this subordinate category of lieutenant.

Mr. David Steel: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him to explain one point? I understand there are to be four categories: the lord-lieutenant, the vice-lieutenant, the lieutenant and the deputy-lieutenant. If so, may I ask him to spell out the functions of each of the four categories? Although he passed over the point about the deputy-lieutenant, that is provided for in subsection (8).

Mr. Campbell: The lord-lieutenants would carry out the duties that lord-lieutenants at present carry out.

Mr. Robert Hughes: What are they?

Mr. Campbell: Other Acts—the Militia Act 1883, the Auxiliary Forces Act 1953, and the Reserve Forces Act 1966—cover these duties. I do not think we want to go into them now. A vice-lieutenant in each lieutenancy is the deputy to the lord-lieutenant. The new category that has been introduced in England and Wales, which it is suggested we take the opportunity of providing in this Bill, the lieutenant, would act in certain circumstances as an assistant lieutenant in a region. The deputy-lieutenants would be the same as the deputy-lieutenants who exist today. We have a new example on my left—my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Munro).
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no great change here. There is simply the introduction of a new category which will give flexibility in future, but for which we do not see an immediate need in Scotland.

Mr. David Steel: So we can say that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) is starting on the bottom rung of the ladder and will work his way up.

Mr. Ross: We are grateful to the Secretary of State for that explanation. I noticed that he could not forbear from laughter as he went from the top to the bottom.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the vice-lieutenant was the assistant to the lord-lieutenant—in other words, he took the place of the lord-lieutenant—and that the lieutenant assisted the lord-lieutenant or would be a kind of assistant lord-lieutenant. When he got to the deputy-lieutenant I think he—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Gave up.

Mr. Ross: —said the situation was as before.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: No change.

Mr. Ross: No change; the same as before. But one of the points was that there was supposed to be a change. There was a time when the deputy-lieutenant had to be connected with the Armed Forces. He had to have been in the Army, the Royal Air Force, and so on. That is why we have so many colonels and admirals in the right hon. Gentleman's part of the country and elsewhere.
It is some time since this change was made enabling the lord-lieutenant, without the restriction of service, to appoint deputy-lieutenants who, I presume, had rendered some kind of service in the lay sphere and were certainly not from the Armed Forces.
1.0 a.m.
One of the troubles is that one can never get information about this matter. When I first saw the new clause, after Second Reading, I tried to table a Question asking who all the lord-lieutenants were, who the vice lord-lieutenants were and who the deputy lord-lieutenants were. I wanted to know their ages when they were appointed, where they lived and what their normal occupation was. I thought that I should have an indication of whether they reflected the broad spectrum of life and employment in the country. I wanted to know how many miners there were.
The whole point is that these people are not representative of the nation. If we want to let these things just dissolve in riddle, we carry on with this caper. We are adding to it with this strange view that we must have this flexibility because they have it in England and that, although we shall not use it, we must have this flexibility. The Secretary of State must know that we shall not use this thing. I am sure that the thought of them coming into an area has made it almost certain that the lord-lieutenant will blow up with apoplexy.
The Secretary of State said that there are practical difficulties if we extend the democratic process and allow certain elected people to become lords-lieutenants. We have added so many at one time, but we could get over that

difficulty by a transitional period. The Secretary of State has not told us about the practical difficulties that already exist and the overlapping that comes from local government reorganisation. Glasgow is to remain and has to retain its Lord Provost. But he is not the Lord Provost of the City of Glasgow; he is the Lord Provost of the new district of Glasgow, which takes in territory from Dumbarton, where there is a very good lord-lieutenant.
The same is true in respect of Lanarkshire. Part of Lanarkshire comes into the Greater Glasgow district. Who is the lord-lieutenant? Is it the lord-lieutenant who remains in situ, who was Lanarkshire's lord-lieutenant, or is it the Lord Provost who now takes over territory in which he had no standing at all? It is the Lord Provost. Does the Secretary of State appreciate the difficulties here?
We heard all about the lord-lieutenants who formerly reigned over these areas. I am sure that this was one of the things in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) who was so concerned to take a certain part of Lanarkshire out of Glasgow. He was thinking of the lord-lieutenant, who would lose a certain amount of cherished rank.
There are certain difficulties here in respect of these changes. The same applies to other parts. The lord-lieutenant of Glasgow, the Lord Provost, has now swayed over a part of Renfrewshire. A former Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Muirshiel, was a lord-lieutenant there. It is not right for the Secretary of State to plead practical difficulty and say that it cannot be done. He has faced practical difficulties in the consequential changes of local government, and if he considers this not purely from a local government point of view but from the point of view of bringing up to date the lord-lieutenancy we shall get over the practical difficulties.
There is the point about the importance of this within the local government changes. One of the greatest changes is the abolition of the magistrates' courts in the burghs and the effect of this on the licensing courts where justices of the peace now have a new and important rôle. JPs are chosen by advisory


committees that are chaired by the lord-lieutenant. Their recommendations to the Secretary of State have to be unanimous so that the lord-lieutenant can block any recommendation going to the Secretary of State.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that certain lord-lieutenants resent that the Secretary of State should try to send back a list as unrepresentative and suggest that changes should be made. I can remember constant battles that I had with a particular lord-lieutenant who resented the Secretary of State, especially a Labour Secretary of State, trying to send these lists back. Bearing in mind the new functions for this office, is it right that this kind of responsibility should be in the hands of that kind of committee, ruled over by a non-elected person? I do not believe that it is. That is one of the reasons why we should modernise the lieutenancy. We will have to rely on JP courts. It is an important matter and it merits far greater consideration and discussion than it has been getting tonight.
It is a matter for levity in certain respects, but when we see how the office is now being woven into the new local government structure and assuming functions of local government that were formerly the responsibility of locally elected people, we can see how important it is. I was going to suggest that the Government should think about the matter and make changes when the Bill reaches another place. But that is probably the last place where we are likely to get the kind of change that I want. I hope that this new breed of lieutenants will get rough handling in the other place. I am sure that if there had not been a change in Fife—and there are probably more lord-lieutenants and people related to them in Fife than anywhere else in Scotland—they would have marched in strength to the House of Lords to deal with this encroachment upon their rights and privileges.
I hope that the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office particularly will adopt a more democratic outlook in these matters. It is not good enough to say that the same is happening in England, that we do not need it but that we shall embody it in the Bill and call it flexibility. I call it nonsense. Although I shall not press the amendment, I hope that the

Secretary of State will think about it, because we should be doing justice to the position if we sought to modernise the system and bring it much more into line with the democratic systems.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 25

ADAPTATION AND AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS

Amendment made: No. 172, in page 241, line 35, leave out "local authority"' and insert:
'"local highway authority within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973"'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 173, in page 244, line 23, after 'Rate', where first occurring, insert 'Rating Authority '.
This is another drafting amendment, which ensures that the definition of "rating authority" in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1929 will remain in force.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 174, in page 252, line 5, leave out 'Insurance' and insert 'Service'.
This is a drafting amendment to correct an error in the amendment made by the Schedule to Section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:No. 175, in page 253, line 1, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.—[Mr. Younger.]

No. 176, in page 256, line 32, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move Amendment No. 368, in page 258, line 4, leave out paragraph 173.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this amendment we may discuss the following amendments:

No. 369, in page 258, line 24, leave out paragraph 174.

No. 370, in page 255, line 32, leave out paragraph 175.

No. 371, in page 258, line 35, leave out paragraph 176, and Government Amendment No. 177.

Mr. Ewing: It is a great pity that the amendments are being debated at this hour, because they are very important. They deal with the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. It is something of a sharp practice to seek to amend that act under the guise of necessity because of the reorganisation of local government.
The first paragraph that we seek to leave out, paragraph 173, deals with the consent necessary from the Secretary of State for Scotland for children under the care of local authorities coming under emigration orders. I accept immediately that there are very few cases in which such circumstances apply, but it is essential that the final court of appeal, the Secretary of State's power to give or withhold authority, should be retained. Certainly in this respect that the Act should not be amended in this way.
I am not so emphatic about paragraph 174. Amendment No. 369 is really only a probing amendment. Here the Secretary of State might well be doing a service in relation to the appointment of a reporter to the Children's panel, where he seeks to take powers to define the qualifications of a reporter, as opposed to the old practice when the position had to be advertised and the list of applicants submitted to him. The Secretary of State gave his approval, the list was sent back to the local authority and the local authority chose the reporter. I should like to hear the Secretary of State's reasons for amending this section of the Act.

Mr. David Steel: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the requirement for the names to be submitted to the Secretary of State is being removed?

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Ewing: Yes. The requirement for the local authority—in this case the regional authority—to advertise the post and submit names to the Secretary of State is removed. Now the Secretary of State defines the qualifications of the reporter, and the regional council is authorised to appoint a person with those qualifications without the approval of the Secretary of State being necessary.
Amendment No. 370, which seeks to omit paragraph 175, is consequential upon the amendment to which I have just spoken.
Paragraph 176 of Schedule 25 bothers me because I cannot understand why it is necessary for children's panels advisory committees to set up sub-committees and remit to them the functions detailed in paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 which the advisory committees at present perform.
I hope that the House will not take the brevity of my submission as an indication that I do not regard the amendment as important. It is very important. We have pressed time and again for a complete review of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, and it should not be amended before that review is undertaken. If the Secretary of State cannot go all the way with me, I hope that he will make some concessions relating to the emigration of children under the control and in the care of the local authority.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I take a slightly different view from that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing). I consider that the reform of local government has something to do with relieving central Government of some of their functions. I am in favour of local authorities not having to come to the Secretary of State for consent for certain actions.

Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend has misunderstood my argument. Amendments are being made to the Social Work (Scotland) Act as a consequence of the reform of the structure of local government, whereas they are matters of social concern. If changes are necessary they should be made by amendment of the Social Work (Scotland) Act.

Mr. Brown: Let us get clear the philosophy behind the amendments. I do not blame the Government if in the process of the reform of local government they take the opportunity of making changes—on which there is general agreement—in other legislation. What are we arguing about?

Mr. Ewing: We are dealing with children under the control and care of the local authority and when a family applies to adopt or foster a child. In these circumstances, it is very important to utilise every court of appeal which at present exists, every avenue of responsibility that exists, in giving an ultimate decision to transfer a child out of the


country. Surely as a safeguard this provision should be reframed, which is the purpose of my amendment.

Mr. Brown: We are getting into a narrow technical point in dealing with the case of a child emigrating, because presumably it would depend on the circumstances in which the local authority took care of the child in the first place. I do not have the Social Work Act here, but my recollection is that there was probably some kind of proviso in previous Acts involving the care of children which may have covered this point.
We now have a new situation. We are creating different social work authorities and not leaving it to the smaller authorities, which may not have the resources, argument and discussion which would take into account the proper responsibilities that should be exercised in protecting a child.
I hope—perhaps unduly optimistically—that we can move away from having almost everything done by local authorities requiring the approval of the Secretary of State. I think that the new authorities will be competent and honourable and responsible enough to discharge functions which at the moment require the Secretary of State's approval. They are big enough and responsible enough to consult their own ratepayers without having to get his approval. There is a fundamental principle here.
My question relates to Amendment No. 177. Again, in this instance the Government are to be complimented on recognising the Strathclyde region by at least doubling the number comprising the advisory committee. What concerns me is the provision enabling such committees to have sub-committees and, in certain circumstances, non-members deciding certain things. The hon. Gentleman should give his reasons for this new departure. Is it because the advisory committees will be too small to do without the help of outside people? I do not deny the wisdom of bringing in people with special knowledge as occasion demands, and I agree with the doubling of the size of the Strathclyde committee, which should help to meet the situation there. A tremendous amount of work is involved in this and we should make no

apology for raising the matter even at this stage.

Mr. Monro: I have listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). One nearly swayed me from the course which I intend to take.
First, I shall explain, in relation to Amendment No. 368, the reasons for the change in the Bill from the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968. Fortunately, there are comparatively few children in the care of voluntary associations or local authorities who wish to emigrate during each year to, for example, relatives abroad or foster parents. Until now the Secretary of State has had to give final approval to any application from a local authority or voluntary organisation. If the amendment were accepted the status quo would remain, with the Secretary of State making the final decision.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs and having thought about the amendment beforehand, I consider that we are still treading on new ground in relation to the Social Work Act. As we are dealing with children in care and without parents, I think that the Secretary of State should continue to retain the ultimate decision. I accept the amendment as it stands, and that will be deleted at a further stage.
Amendments Nos. 369 and 370 relate to reporters. My right hon. Friend and I, now that we have had a few years' experience of the working of the appointment of reporters, think that it has gone well. By 1975 the regional authorities might well take over this important responsibility. The Secretary of State is taking power in the schedule to prescribe qualifications, should he wish to do so, such as a legal qualification or experience in social work. It is within the powers of the regional authorities to make the final appointment of a reporter and we should no longer have to go through the present system of appointment through the Secretary of State and recommending back to the local authority. Perhaps on reflection the hon. Gentleman will see that there is a good case for what my right hon. Friend wishes to do.

Mr. David Steel: Has the Association of Reporters a view about this matter?

Mr. Monro: My professional services group is always in close touch with the Association of Reporters. I should be surprised if the point has not been discussed. [Interruption.] I am being attacked by a wasp.

Mr. Dalyell: Without the Under-Secretary feeling that he has been attacked by two wasps, may I ask him what the qualifications are to which he referred?

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Monro: These will have to be prescribed in regulations. I hold to what I said to the House, that this might include a legal qualification or an experience in social work, which is reasonable for the basic requirements for a reporter. There is nothing particularly obscure in that.
Amendment No. 371 would simply remove any doubt about whether the children's panel advisory committee would have the right to set up a sub-committee which could make recommendations to the main committee. But the sub-committee would be only advisory. In view of the large number of men and women who are giving most valuable time to the children's panels, particularly in the west region, it is not unreasonable to enable the main committee to ask the sub-committee to look at various recommendations and report back. This is complementary to Amendment No. 177, which I shall be moving.

Mr. Ewing: The Minister said that the sub-committees could make recommendations to the main committee. In view of the fact that all the powers conferred under Schedule 3(5) of the 1968 Act could be passed to the sub-committees and one of the powers is that they can make recommendations to the Secretary of State, does this not mean that the subcommittees can make recommendations and representations to the Secretary of State without going to the main committee at all?

Mr. Monro: I am prepared to write to the hon. Member and to withdraw if I am wrong, but my advice is that the sub-committee will have the power only to advise the main committee—an assurance that I am sure the hon. Member will accept. The powers are advisory only and not for a firm appointment.
Amendment No. 177, which increases the number on the advisory committee in the Strathclyde region from five to 10, is complementary to Amendment No. 371. There are at the moment about 700 members of panels in what will be the Strathclyde region. It is only reasonable that we should have a larger number of the main committee to advise on the appointment of the new members of the panel. The panels throughout Scotland are doing an exceptional job and the system is working very well. Hon. Members will agree that in the very large Strathclyde region it is right to double the size of the advisory committee.
I hope that I have covered all the points in hon. Members' minds. I believe that acceptance of the amendment will benefit the children who may have to emigrate for a particular reason.

Mr. David Steel: We should all be grateful to the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) on scoring a triumph at the last minute—a last-minute try just before the whistle is blown. He raised a serious point. The heading on page 237 is "Minor and consequential amendments". It is under that heading that these changes are taking place. There is a case for inclusion of sections of the Social Work Act, and if one started putting in these sections there is a good deal that one could take the opportunity of inserting here, but one should not pretend that these changes are inconsequential. The Bill would be watertight and valid without them. The criticism raised is valid and I am grateful that the Under-Secretary has recognised that and will withdraw paragraph 173 from the Schedule.
I should like to ask two points about paragraphs 174 and 176. I have not had an opportunity to consult the reporter for Selkirkshire whom I see from time to time. I am not sure whether, in these days of women's lib, it is right to declare an interest on the grounds of one's wife's employment, but if so, I do.
I do not know whether the Association of Reporters has a view on the method of appointment but there is a serious difficulty here. The position of a reporter at present is that of appointment by a local authority, but subject to approval by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of


State confirms the appointment. That means that the reporter is in a different position from the director of social work or other social workers in an area and the relationship between a reporter and the professional side of social work and the local authority social work committee is different, and an exploratory one, under the 1968 Act.
In three quarters of my constituency this has worked well so that I am not making a comment on the local area, but because of the nature of the relationship it could give rise to difficulties.
I want to be sure that the Association of Reporters has considered this matter in the light of collective experience, because if one gets a situation where this function of making the appointment is taken away from the Secretary of State, the reporter becomes an employee of the local authority, with social workers and other professional people with whom the reporter has to deal. This is not a minor but a significant change which should be dealt with on its merits.
On paragraph 176, I would have thought I agreed with the Under-Secretary that the system is working well because there is a good deal of ill-informed criticism of the children's panel system as it operates in Scotland, although it has been in operation for a considerable length of time.
I would have thought that the children's panel advisory committee was the one weak point in the set-up, but I do not know whether that is true in other parts of Scotland. Having a layer of appointment, there is a filter against extension of knowledge from central Government down to the panels. If it is the intention of the schedule to elaborate the function of the children's panel advisory committee through the appointment of subcommittees, I am not certain that in the light of experience this is necessary or desirable.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 177, in page 258, line 35, after '3', insert:
'(children's panels), the following amendments shall be made—
(a) in paragraph 3, after the words "consisting of" there shall be inserted the words—

"(i) in the case of the committee for the Strathclyde region, four members nominated by the local authority and six

members nominated by the Secretary of State;
(ii) in any other case,";

and the words after "Secretary of State" shall cease to have effect;
(b)'—[Mr. Monro.]

No. 178, in page 260, line 8, at end add:

The Fire Precautions Act 1971

In section 43 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of "local authority", in paragraph (b), for the words from "the council" onwards there shall be substituted the words "except in section 17, the islands or district council.".'—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause 211

CONSEQUENTIAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 179, in page 124, line 15, leave out river purification board '.—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause 212

TRANSFER OF OFFICERS

Amendment made: No. 180, in page 125, line 15, leave out river purification board'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Schedule 26

AMENDMENT OF BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACTS 1892 TO 1911

Amendments made: No. 181, in page 269, line 25, leave out paragraph ' and insert sub-paragraph '.

No. 182, in page 269, line 29, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraph'—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause 227

ORDERS, RULES AND REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 183, in page 138, line 44, leave out '10,'.

No. 184, in page 138, line 44, leave out from '208' to shall ' in line 45.—[Mr. Younger.]

Schedule 27

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 185, in page 270, line 33, at end insert:


1 &amp; 2 Vict. c. 119.
The Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1838.
Section 27.'

No. 186, in page 271, line 24, at end add:


41 &amp; 42 Vict. c 51
The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878.
Section121.

No. 187, in page 271, line 55, at end add:


55 &amp; 56 Vict. c. 12.
The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Amendment Act 1892.
Section 5.

No. 188, in page 275, line 2, column 3, after '98', insert
'in subsection (2), the words from "intimated" to "Scotland and".'.

No. 189, in page 275, line 36, at end add:


4 &amp; 5 Geo. 5. c. 46.
The Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act 1914.
In section 28, the words "subject to the consent of the Board".'.

No. 190, in page 275, line 53, column 3, at beginning insert:
'In section 1, in subsection (5), the words "on payment of the prescribed fee", in both places where they occur.'.

No. 191, in page 275, line 55, column 3, at end add:
In subsection (7), the words "subject to payment of the prescribed fee".'.

No. 192, in page 275, line 56, column 3, at beginning insert:
'In section 5, in the proviso, paragraph (a).'.

No. 193, in page 276, line 19, column 3, at beginning insert:
'In section 2(5), the words "not exceeding five shillings" and the words "not exceeding one shilling".'.

No. 194, in page 276, line 50, at end add:


19 &amp; 20 Geo. 5. c. 33.
The Bridges Act 1929.
Section 3.




In section 7(3), the words from "and any question" onwards.




Section 10(1) and (2).'.

No. 195, in page 276, line 50, at end add:


20 &amp; 21 Geo. 5. c. 43.
The Road Traffic Act 1930.
In section 53, in sub-section (2)(b), the words from "but a right" onwards, and in subsection (6), the words "subject to the approval of the Minister".




In section 56, subsection (2) and in subsection (3), the words from "or if" onwards.'.

No. 196, in page 276, line 54, at end add:


25 &amp; 26 Geo. 5. c. 47.
The Restriction of Ribbon Development Act 1935.
In section 17(2), the words from "measured" to "State".'

No. 197, in page 277, line 17, column 3, at end add:
'In section 10(5), the words from "and if" onwards.'.

No. 198, in page 277, line 51, column 3, at beginning insert:
'Section 3.
In section 9, the words from "and the Secretary" onwards.'.

No. 199, in page 277, line 53, column 3. at end add:
'In section 24(1), the proviso.
In section 29(2), in the proviso, the words from "and any" onwards.
In section 53, in subsection (1), the words from "in accordance" to "may make", and subsection (4).'.

No. 200, in page 277, line 55, column 3, at end add:
'In Schedule 4, in paragraph 19, the words from "Any dispute" onwards, and in paragraph 24(2), the words from "or as" onwards.'.

No. 328, in page 278, line 28, leave out '189' and insert '188'.

No. 201, in page 279, line 36, column 3, at end insert:
'In section 262(1), in paragraph (b) of the proviso, the words from "in order" to "relates" and the words from "in accordance" onwards.'.

No. 202, in page 280, line 7, at end insert 'and subsection (2).'.

No. 203, in page 280, line 38, column 3, at end add 'section 138(2).'.

No. 204, in page 282, line 14, column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 14.'.

No. 205, in page 282, line 14, column 3, at end add 'section 18.'.

No. 206, in page 282, line 23, at end add:


'14 &amp; 15 Geo. 6. c 35.
 The pet Animals Act 1951.
In section 1(2) the words "no exceeding £2".'.

No. 207, in page 282, line 26, at end insert:
'In section 10, subsections (2) to (4)'.

No. 208, in page 282, line 27, at end insert 'Section 15.'.

No. 209, in page 282, line 37, at end insert:
'In Schedule 1, in paragraph 7, subparagraphs (a) and (b).'.

No. 210, in page 283, in line 7, column 3, at beginning insert:
'In section 21, in subsection (1), the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State" and the words from "and any" onwards, and subsections (2) and (3)
Section 22(2).'.

No. 211, in page 284, line 30, leave out 'and'.

No. 212, in page 284, line 32, at end insert 'and the words "or (2)" and in subsection (7) the words "or subsection (2)".'.

No. 213, in page 284, line 49, at end insert 'In section 30(1), the proviso'.

No. 214, in page 287, line 26, at end add:


'1963 c. 43.
The Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963.
In section 1(2), the words "not exceeding £2".'.

No. 215, in page 289, line 10, column 3, at end add:
'In section 6(3). the words from "in such", where first occurring, to "direction".'.

No. 216, in page 289, line 21, column 3, at end add:
In section 29, in subsection (1), the words frm "exercisable" to "by him", and subsection (2).
In section 31(2), the words from "and where" onwards.

In section 37(5), the words "in the prescribed manner", and the words from "and in this" onwards.
In section 44, in subsection (2), in the provisio, the words from "but shall not" onwards, and in subsection (3)(c) the words "with the consent of the appropriate Minister".'.

No 217, in page 289, line 55, column 3, at end add:
'Section 18(2).'.

No 218, in page 290, line 37, column at end add:
In section 41(1)(b), the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State".'.

No. 219, in page 291, leave out lines 39 to 41.

No. 220, in page 291, line 44, leave out 'river purification authority'.

No. 221, in page 291, line 48, column 3, at end add:
'In section 22, the words "the Secretary of State or ".'.

No. 222, in page 291, line 56, column 3, at end insert:
'In Schedule 3, in paragraph 3, the words after "Secretary of State".'.

No. 223, in page 292, line 6, column 3, at end add:
'In section 12(4), the words "with the consent of the Minister".'.

No. 224, in page 292, line 9, column 3, at end add:
'In section 36, in subsection (2), the words "subject to subsection (3) of this section", and subsections (3) to (8).
In section 37, in subsection (1), the words from "with the consent" to "State", and subsection (2).'.

No. 225, in page 292, line 14, column 3, at end add:
'Section 138(7), (8) and (9)(a).'.

No. 226, in page 294, line 27, at end add:


'1971 c. 40.
The Fire Precautions Act 1971.
In section 17, in subsection (1), in paragraph (ii), the words "section 1 of", and in subsection (2) the words "or buildings authority".

No. 227, in page 294, line 44, column 3, at end add:
'In section 63(1), the words from "then" to "State".
In section 84(1), the words from "to any" to "State and".'.

No. 228, in page 295, column 3, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert:
' In section 260, in subsection (1), the words from "may give" to "confirmation or", in subsection (5), the words from or under" to "61 of this Act", and the words from "may give" to "notice or", and in subsection (6), the words "council or".'.—[Mr. Younger.]

New Schedule

RELAXATION OF CONTROLS

The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878

1. Section 121 (annual reports) shall cease to have effect.

The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Amendment Act 1892

2. Section 5 (preservation of lands from injury) shall cease to have effect.

The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892

3. In section 396 (terms of licence for theatres, etc) for the words from the beginning to "£5 "there shall be substituted the words "A reasonable fee set by the issuing authority shall be payable for each licence".

4. In section 433 (brokers' licences), for the words "sum not exceeding two shillings and sixpence" there shall be substituted the words "reasonable sum set by the issuing authority".

The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act1903

5. In section 81 (licensing of billiard halls), for the words from "fee" to "shillings" there shall be substituted the words "reasonable fee set by the issuing authority shall be payable".

6. In section 98(2) (application of Parts I and II), the words from "intimated" to "Scotland and" shall cease to have effect.

The Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act 1914

7. In section 28 (milk depots), the words "subject to the consent of the Board" shall cease to have effect.

The Performing Animals (Regulation) Act
1925

8. In section 1 (restriction on exhibition, etc., of performing animals), the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in subsection (2), for the words "the prescribed fee" there shall be substituted the words "such fee as appears to the local authority to be appropriate"
(b) in subsection (5), the words "on payment of the prescribed fee", in both places where they occur, shall cease to have effect;
(c) in subsection (7), the words "subject to payment of the prescribed fee" shall cease to have effect;
(d) at the end there shall be added the following subsection—

"(8) A local authority may charge such fees as appear to them to be appropriate for inspection of the register, for taking copies thereof or making extracts there-from or for inspection of copies of certificates of registration issued by them."

The Roads Improvement Act 1925

9. In section 5 (prescription of building lines), paragraph (a) of the proviso shall cease to have effect.

The Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act
1928

10. In section 2(5) (fees for licences), the words "not exceeding five shillings" and the words "not exceeding one shilling" shall cease to have effect.

The Bridges Act 1929

11. In section 7(3) (arbitrations, etc.), the words from "and any question" onwards shall cease to have effect.

12. In section 10 (rules of procedure), sub sections (1) and (2) shall cease to have effect.

The Road Traffic Act 1930

13. In section 53 (tolls), the following amendments shall be made

(a) in subsection (2)(b), the words from "but a right" onwards shall cease to have effect;
(b) in subsection (6), the words "subject to the aproval of the Minister" shall cease to have effect.

14. In section 56 (removal of structures from highways), the following amendments shall be made—

(a) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect;
(b) in subsection (3), the words from "or if" onwards shall cease to have effect.

The Restriction of Ribbon Development Act 1935

15. In section 17(2) (provision of means of entrance, etc., as condition of approval of building plans), the words from "measured" to "State" shall cease to have effect.

The Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland)
Act 1937

16. In section 10(5) (application of 1847 Act), the words from "and if" onwards shall cease to have effect.

The Methylated Spirits (Sale by Retail)
(Scotland) Act 1937

17. In section 2 (lists of persons entitled to sell methylated spirits), the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in subsection (1), in the proviso, for the words "prescribed fees" there shall be substituted the words "fees set by them";
(b) in subsection (2), for the words "prescribed fee", there shall be substituted the words "fee set by the authority";
(c) in subsection (4), for the words "fees as may be prescribed" there shall be substituted the words "reasonable fees as the authority may set".

The Water (Scotland) Act 1946

18. Section 3 (Secretary of State may require records, etc., from persons abstracting water) shall cease to have effect.

19. In section 9 (water for domestic purposes), the words from "and the Secretary" onwards shall cease to have effect.

20. In section 24(1) (power to carry out works), the proviso shall cease to have effect.

21. In section 29(2) (local authority may provide wells, etc.), in the proviso, the words from "and any" onwards shall cease to have effect.

22. In section 53 (provision of water supply for new buildings), in subsection (1), the words from "in accordance" to "may make", and subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.

23. In Schedule 4 (provisions to be incorporated in orders relating to water undertakings), in paragraph 19, the words from "Any dispute" onwards, and in paragraph 24(2), the words from "or as" onwards, shall cease to have effect.

The Local Government Act 1948

24. Section 138(2) (consent of Minister to agreements) shall cease to have effect.

The Highways (Provision of Cattle-Grids) Act 1950

25. Sections 14 (provision of cattle-grids off roads) and 18 (provisions as to cattle-grids provided before the Act) shall cease to have effect.

The Pet Animals Act 1951

26. In section 1(2) (licensing of pet shops), the words "not exceeding £2" shall cease to have effect.

The Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956

27. In section 21 (provision of cold stores by local authority), in subsection (I), the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State" and the words from "and any" onwards shall cease to have effect, and subsections (2) and (3) shall cease to have effect.

28. Section 22(2) (notification of cases of food poisoning) shall cease to have effect.

The Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963

29. In section 1(2) (licensing of boarding establishments for animals), the words "not exceeding £2" shall cease to have effect.

The Riding Establishments Act 1964

30. In section 1(2) (licensing of riding establishments), for the words "a fee of £10" there shall be substituted the words "such fee as may be set by the local authority".

The Plant Health Act 1967

31. In section 6(3) (publication of orders), the words from "in such", where first occurring, to "direction" shall cease to have effect.

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967

32. In section 12(6) (temporary prohibition or restriction of traffic), for the words "six weeks from the making" there shall be substituted the words "three months from the coming into operation".

33. In section 29 (powers regarding off-street parking places), in subsection (1), the words from "exercisable" to "by him", and subsection (2), shall cease to have effect.

34. In section 31(2) (use of parking places), the words from "and where" onwards shall cease to have effect.

35. In section 37(5) (supplementary provisions), for the words "the prescribed steps" there shall be substituted the words "such steps as appear to them to be appropriate", for the words from "not less" to "occasions" there shall be substituted the word "afterwards", and the words "in the prescribed manner" and the words from "and in this" onwards shall cease to have effect.

36. In section 44 (financial provisions), in subsection (2), in the proviso, the words from "but shall not" onwards shall cease to have effect, and in subsection (3)(c), the words "with the consent of the appropriate Minister" shall cease to have effect.

The Water (Scotland) Act 1967

37. In Schedule 5 (amendments of the Water (Scotland) Acts), in paragraph 26, in subsection (1) of the substituted section 18, for the words "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted the words "water authority within whose limits of supply the premises are situated", and in the said section 18, subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.

The Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967

38. In section 41(1)(b) (ferries for purposes of long-distance routes), the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State" shall cease to have effect.

The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968

39. In section 22 (removal of children in residential establishments), the words "the Secretary of State or" shall cease to have effect.

The Transport Act 1968

40. In section 12(4) (borrowing powers of Executive), the words "with the consent of the Minister" shall cease to have effect.

41. In section 36 (power of local authority to run contract carriages), in subsection (2), the words "subject to subsection (3) of this section" shall cease to have effect, and subsections (3) to (8) shall cease to have effect.

42. In section 37 (power for local authorities to acquire or dispose of public service vehicle undertakings), in subsection (1), the words from "with the consent" to "State" shall cease to have effect, and subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.

43. In section 138 (travel concessions), subsections (7), (8) and (9)(a) shall cease to have effect.

The Town and Country Planning
(Scotland) Act 1972

44. In section 63(1) (proper maintenance of waste land), the words from "then" to "State" shall cease to have effect.

45. In section 84(1) (power to serve enforcement notice), the words from "to any" to "State and" shall cease to have effect.

46. In section 260 (default powers of Secretary of State), in subsection (1), the words from "may give" to "confirmation or" shall


cease to have effect, and in subsection (5), the words from "or under" to "61 of this Act" and the words from "may give" to "notice or" shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. Younger.]—

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That the Schedule be read a Second time.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have spent a long time considering this Bill, including 15 weeks in Committee with 42 sittings for a total of 123 hours. Apart from consolidation measures, this is the biggest Scottish Bill Parliament has had to consider in recent years, indeed in the memory of those who have been involved in Scottish parliamentary affairs. It is also one of great significance. We have been creating a framework for the next few decades and it is a major reorganisation which we recognise will entail a great deal of work for all concerned with local government.
The new pattern of regions and districts created with the aim of corresponding to the natural communities of interest throughout Scotland affords the opportunity for the new local authorities to provide services effectively and to meet the needs of their areas in the years ahead.

1.47 a.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I find it difficult to become enthusiastic about anything at this time in the morning. I would not be letting any secrets out if I told the right hon. Gentleman that I do not share the enthusiasm he showed in moving the Third Reading. On Third Reading we start to look at what we have done. My view is that I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can argue that we have reformed local government in Scotland—we have destroyed it.
Sometimes a moment of truth descends during debates. I heard an hon. Member on Report trying to defend the concept of Wheatley, and there was a moment of truth because all hon. Members knew

that he was trying to defend something that could not be defended.
We were told that Wheatley was one of the pillars of the Bill. It has become something very different. It is an act of faith to say, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that we can make the system a success. This is a completely untried system. Why was it necessary to destroy entirely the existing system of local government to modernise and reconstitute it? The whole concept of centralising institutions argued by Wheatley is out of date now, and all over the world decentralisation policies are coming forward. We are not presenting Scotland with a democratic structure. The result of this will be that democracy will be a casualty. At a time when the whole philosophy of democracy which we hold so dear is coming increasing under challenge, this will not help to sustain and cherish democratic institutions.
The Government have always tried to convince us that the Bill is based upon the concept of Wheatley. The people of Scotland have become convinced that many pillars of Wheatley have been swept asunder by the Bill. The Bill is not Wheatley.
We argued that more and more people must be persuaded to participate in local government and that at present the franchise was too limited. Wheatley thought that an increasing number of people would aspire to serve in the new structure. But it cannot be said that the Bill is being extended in this structure. The Bill will inhibit people from aspiring to serve.
Last week I was discussing the new structure with a schoolteacher in the area where I live. He said that he would have liked to stand for election in the new system but could not, because he had been told originally that those serving on regional councils would be involved full time in organising the new structure. This schoolteacher has a responsible post in the profession and has a wife and family to support. The Bill disfranchises him. He was prepared to leave the profession to serve in local government and he, among with many others, would have made a splendid contribution. The Government in turning their backs on councillors being full-time have at one stroke destroyed


another pillar of Wheatley, for only a limited number of people will be able to aspire to the new structure.
Another argument was that the icy hand of central Government would be removed and that the new local authorities would be able to go ahead with their own ideas independent of central Government. Even hon. Members who are enthusiastic about the Bill could not argue that the new structure will mean less central Government control. This is a bureaucrat's dream.
Under the existing structure of local government the Secretary of State does not have to consult all the organisations. He does not have to consult the county councils associations, the large and small burghs, the districts and city councils, and so on, about various aspects of Government policy as it relates to local government, and under the proposed structure the right hon. Gentleman will be able to intervene and tell them what to do.
Wheatley said that under the new system local government would have its own revenue and there would be a new financial structure which would result in imaginative ideas being put forward by the regions. It was said that because of the new financial set-up the regions would be more independent of central Government. We ain't going to have that, and the people of Scotland are entitled to know that we ain't. The people of Scotland should be in no doubt that under the new set-up the Government will be able to interfere more and more with the structure of local government.
We were told that community councils would be a wonderful answer to our problems. I do not want to make again the speech that I made in Committee about community councils, but I said then that the Government were not enthusiastic about them. The Government have decided that if community councils are given power to do certain things they will be an embarrassment not only to the new structure of local government but to the Government themselves. If the Government wanted these councils to succeed, they could have ensured their success by making the legislation mandatory instead of permissive.

Some authorities will be enthusiastic about community councils, while others will not provide them with the help that they will need to perform their functions. When we discussed this matter in Committee I said that the Government were digging a grave for the community councils.
The Government have displayed a lack of political nous in not waiting for Kilbrandon to report, because it may prove to be the case that we are reorganising local government on the wrong lines. The right hon. Gentleman had a wonderful opportunity to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that because of the forthcoming Kilbrandon Report, and because of the difficulties that the Conservative Party would run into following that report, the implementation of the Bill would be delayed.
In Committee I made my point about the reorganisation of the police force, and when the matter was being considered on Report I found it difficult to restrain myself from intervening at length. Why do the Government think that bigger police forces are the answer, without thinking of the power that will be given to the chief constables who will be in charge of them? The Strathclyde Region will contain half the population of Scotland, and the powers of the chief constable for this area will be enormous. Will his power and authority equal that of the Secretary of State? What relationship will the Secretary of State have with the chief constable? The chief constable may be a very good individual, and let us hope he is—this is not a question attacking the police—but a chief constable, with the power he has, could practise tyranny within own police force, and the members of the force could be subjected to that tyranny. What we have done in this respect in the Bill is seriously deficient.
As I said at the outset, I have found it difficult at any time to have enthusiasm for the Bill. I find very little support in the areas for this concept of local government. We have heard said in defence of it such wonderful phrases as strategic economic planning, as though the Bill were a wonderful panacea, some wonderful key to open the golden gates of heaven, but the Secretary of State himself made it perfectly clear that the


new local government institutions will have only a very limited rôle in strategic economic planning. When in Committee we were talking about Strathclyde and Hunterston he told us "I have reserved powers for Hunterston, and you would not want me to give them up". I agree with him. The Government should not give up central economic planning, and local government should not be superior to central Government in planning and management of the economy, but all the fine talk about the Bill and the fine phrases used about it have been a deception of the people of Scotland, who thought they were to get more autonomy. The reality is that the Government are not going to give all that power to local government, and they will not for the best of reasons, but even to suggest otherwise was dishonest.
I took no part in the debates on Report, and I hope that the House will understand that I had to say a word or two now. I have tried to restrain myself I could have said very much more. Now, in the usual and traditional way when one disapproves of a Bill, I shall vote against the Third Reading of this Bill, because the local government structure in it is inadequate for the people of Scotland and will serve them no good.

2.3 a.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: It is a funny thing how so often births take place at inconvenient hours of night. Nevertheless, though that is true, they are usually very exciting occasions. It is a funny thing also that often they do not seem exciting at the time. There is not much excitement in this Chamber now. Nevertheless I certainly would not like the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), sincerely though he feels it, to go out as representative of the general attitude of Scotland. I do not at all believe that it is.
For me personally this is an important moment. I can remember very well how, seven years ago, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), then the Secretary of State, took me into a somewhat palatial room and invited me to serve on that commission known as the Wheatley Commission.

Mr. David Steel: Did my hon. Friend get a drink?

Mr. Johnston: No, I did not, but I was very grateful for the opportunity to serve on the commission, and it was perhaps the most interesting and exciting thing I have ever done.
Despite what was said by the hon. Member for Midlothian, I think that those who served on that commission—most of all, Lord Wheatley himself—in a surprising way, because we were a fairly disparate group of people, though extremely well served by some excellent civil servants from St. Andrew's House, welded together in three years in a remarkable way.
I know that the Bill is not perfect. Neither, for that matter, was Wheatley perfect; nor is the present system of local government perfect by any manner of means. But to hear the hon. Member for Midlothian one would believe that we were thrusting something terrible on something that was good.

Mr. Eadie: I never said that it was good.

Mr. Johnston: The implication certainly was that a disaster was about to strike us all.

Mr. Eadie: It certainly is.

Mr. Johnston: I do not think it is. I am optimistic and hopeful. I know that there are shortcomings. The power that the Wheatley Commission believed to be an essential part of the new structure will depend upon a different attitude to finance. The effectiveness which we saw as a vital ingredient should be there anyway, because the organisation should be simpler and more straightforward. Local democracy depends so much on what people will do and the candidates who come forward. I accept the criticism that there are limitations on candidates and that local involvement depends upon producing effective systems of devolution and of management. All these problems we will face. But tonight in this House I believe that we have done something very good and constructive for the future of Scotland. I hope that when the Bill comes back from the other place it will be the beginning of a better system of local government suited to the end of this century.

2.7. a.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I am sure that we all pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) in his three hard years on the Wheatley Commission.
Viewing the situation now, I feel closer to the position than my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). I remember when this long, weary trek for the reform of local government started with the White Paper produced by the Conservative Government and the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), who was in the Chamber a moment ago. It started 10 years ago. Then the Wheatley Commission began work.
I was honoured to be the first to give evidence before that commission. I remember the excitement that I felt when I gave evidence and realised that here was a commission which was dedicated to the idea of a major constructive reform of local government which was to combine greater efficiency in handling services with greater democracy—a new system of local government for Scotland which would have a degree of independence from central Government, a degree of initiative and of power to do things for the people in its area. It was exciting.
When the Wheatley Commission reported I could not help feeling what a better system it advocated for Scotland than Maud advocated for England: a two-tier system adapted to Scottish needs. Admittedly, Scotland is a difficult country to fit into a single pattern, but the pattern evolved was the best that could be produced for Scotland, based, as it was, on the regional concept of government with difficulties in rural areas.
I admired what the Wheatley Commission did. I hoped that, as a result of the Bill that we would put through the House under one Government or another subsequently, we would get this great step forward in local democracy and efficiency that I wanted.
Looking at the Bill that we are passing through this House for Third Reading, my feeling of disappointment is almost overwhelming. What we have now is a bodge, a mess up—something that I fear

will get rid of the good features of the present system without rising to the levels and the achievements that Wheatley hoped we would get with the new system. I am very frightened that we shall have produced something in the end which will be worse on the major criteria than the old system which we are now abolishing.
I should like briefly to point to the major things which worry me. First, the regional system, which had a certain logic and coherence, has been destroyed due to political weakness and wetness on the part of the Government, who have allowed the regional concept to be broken in the east of Scotland by the retention of one county, Fife, as a region, thus spoiling the regions that Wheatley set out to the north and to the south. Unfortunately, the island authorities, which were entitled to a greater measure of self-control, should not have been taken out of the strategic planning area of the Highlands. These were weaknesses, and they have broken, basically, the Wheatley structure as it was set out.
Secondly, a major problem, and one much more serious, is that the relationship between central Government and local government shows no fundamental sign of changing. Although there is a schedule of relaxations, the whole approach of the central Government at St. Andrew's House has not taken that leap of greater confidence in local government which Wheatley said was absolutely essential to the system working. There is every sign that there will be the same degree of centralised control. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said, instead of having to control a large number of authorities, there are now nine regions that can be got together in one room in St. Andrew's House to have their heads knocked together regularly.
This is not only a matter of central Government controls. There is no real system of finance, which Wheatley said was essential to setting up the independence of these new authorities. There is no clear reduction in central Government control. Not only that, but in terms of functions, some functions have actually been taken away from authorities. The health functions that local authorities used to have have been taken away and given to area health boards. The Government's lack of confidence in the


new local authority system is so great that, although the new area health boards are identical in area to the regions, they are not being given to the democratic control of the regions to administer because the central Government do not trust these bodies with the amount of money involved.
In effect, it is clear from the start that this system is starting without confidence in this new relationship. Part of the evidence of this we see throughout the Bill. One piece of evidence is that the Government have not removed the disqualifications of important sections of the community which would want to serve. We had a second piece of evidence yesterday when we asked for salaries, which Wheatley said were essential for councillors at both levels. The right hon. Member for Argyll told his own Front Bench that this system would not work unless they had the proper new form of councillor paid an adequate salary for an adequate job. What were we told by the Conservative Front Bench, as a great joke? They said "We cannot tell you the attendance allowances; but do not blame us because if they did get salaries we could not tell you about them either." That was a bit of a laugh.
The Government have shown no confidence in the new system that they are erecting. In neither the structure nor the functions, nor the kind of people, is it showing any great change of the kind that the whole Wheatley concept set up. What are we doing? We are sweeping away the liveliest section of Scottish local government today, the small burgh system, and setting up new large regions which have no intrinsic existing loyalty or enthusiasm.
We wanted to get that by conferring a much wider degree of power on local government and by trying to get new groups in the community to take part in local government. There is no evidence that this is happening. There is no evidence that the people coming forward are anything but the people in the existing pattern of local government with the existing attitudes and ideas. They are coming forward into a system with the same degree of central Government control and domination. All the hope that we

put into the Wheatley system seems, I fear—I say this with regret—to be already disappearing.
As I look ahead I have only one overwhelming feeling, and that is of sorrow that this great opportunity that we had of recasting a greater, more democratic system of local government for the rest of the century has been seriously lost due just to a lack of imagination, confidence and courage on the part of the Government. I for one feel a great sense of disappointment at what has happened in this House.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I echo some of the criticisms that my hon. Friend has made but I do not go so far as to say that the Bill is a botch-up. I share his criticisms about salaries and the mistakes that the Government have made.
I also feel a sense of personal achievement at having notched up a couple of amendments. The Government were not very good at accepting amendments in Committee but the Opposition can claim to have done the job that an Opposition should do and have probed, examined and questioned. I think that we did that job well. There is also a sense of relief that the whole thing is just about finished.
I should give the Government in general terms almost full marks for genuinely trying to do what they believe to be best for local government in a situation where there were so many opportunities for playing at party politics. That was one of the disturbing features about many of the representations we received. I landed in trouble for saying that before. But from both sides there were political representations which had nothing to do with trying to get good local government.
By and large, with the exception of Fife, these remarks apply. The exception is Fife, where the retreat by the Government—that is the only way to describe it—was a disaster. I am sure that they will regret what they have done. It is too late now to do anything about it, but I am sure that it will prove to be the biggest mistake of all. The big challenge for many of us will lie in the Strathclyde region. There will be enormous problems, but equally I am a little more optimistic than some of my hon. Friends.
I hope that the resources of the political parties—this is one of the worrying factors—will be able to match the opportunities that are presented for encouraging and stimulating a greater public interest in depth on the many services that are discharged by local authorities. This is something which in another context the House will need to address itself to—what resources and what help might be given to political parties to enable them to do a better job in a democratic set-up.
If there are dangers because there are bigger authorities or because the institutions are big, it seems to me that it is not always right to break up the institutions, but we should provide balances and checks through the political system which can inject democracy that we on the Opposition believe in and want to encourage. But, in spite of these criticisms, there is an opportunity for improvement. The system is not perfect. I would not say that it is nothing like Wheatley; we are not always obliged to regard everything that a Royal Commission sends to us as the last word. Some of the basic principles have been so rigid that it makes it difficult to judge why the Government have done what they have. In spite of this we have an opportunity. I am confident that people in the local authorities—some of the existing ones and the new one to come in—will accept the challenge and create opportunities that might perhaps help to overcome some of the failures of the Government in this respect.

2.19 a.m.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps it is not entirely accidental that I am the third and last of the representatives from the Lothians to express extreme gloom because, contrary to what we thought would happen, we are now confronted in our areas with being part of an area which is dominated by the leviathan of Edinburgh when we thought that there would be a balanced area and that half of Fife would be with us. That makes some difference. because I should like to express the views of many people in West Lothian—not only in the Labour Party but in the trade unions and others—that it is wrong that we should be spatchcocked in with Edinburgh without the counterbalancing effect of the south of Fife.
I do not say that for party political reasons. It is something far deeper. It is the fear that country areas which have run our affairs well for many years will be dominated by a city. I do not want to be unduly pompous, but we are not that kind of people, and these differences are important. If there were a balance, it might be acceptable, but the alteration in the east of Scotland is something we shall have to live with, and we look on this with gloom.
The past 20 hours or so have been an eye-opener for one who was not on the Committee. I should have thought it inconceivable to the Wheatley Commission that we should have reached Third Reading without any clear idea of how finance and planning will be worked out. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) will interrupt me if am wrong, but I believe that it was generally assumed, perhaps naively and wrongly, that by the time we reached this stage in the proceedings we should be presented with a clear idea of the nuts and bolts on finance and planning. What do we get? When certain courteous questions are put to the junior Minister about what he means by structural and strategic planning—[Interruption.] If I am grossly unfair, let him speak. If he wants to reply, he must define what is strategic planning and what is structural planning. It is no good his frowning. When the question was asked, the answer was the proverbial lemon, that it was not worked out.
The truth is that there is a basic fallacy here, which was perhaps accepted by the Wheatley Commission and which has gone into many of our discussions, that somehow bigger is better. I am not at all persuaded, after all the arguments in the Press and by people who have worked very hard in the Committee, that the economies of scale, which have been taken as self-evident and axiomatic, work in the context of local government in Scotland. I wonder whether much of the argument for larger units is not based on a deep fallacy. Only time will tell, but some of us have the gravest doubts.
The next thing that worries me is what worries my hon. Friends the Members for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), that in all the discussions it was crucial to Wheatley's view that at any rate certain


councillors should be relieved of financial worry; it was generally accepted that there should be paid councillors. If that is changed, one assumes that a different kind of person will have key jobs. The great importance of those key jobs is common ground between both sides of the House. A very good point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who asked a very simple question which was not answered. He said that there is no security in attendance allowances and asked what happens if a key individual goes sick. Such a person does not have a salary. There is no security for a person who decides to give five years of his life to public work of that kind. Therefore, the jobs will be done either by people with means of their own or by retired people, because very few people in the prime of life will undertake the risk. This set-up excludes many of the people best fitted to do these important jobs. They would not have been excluded if the Wheatley package had been accepted.
I have grave doubts about the consequences to local democracy. The question that is often asked is: "Is one councillor to represent the whole of Whitburn and half Fauldhouse?" That is a very different situation from what has been known before. There are grave doubts not only about democracy and personal contact but about the political parties in general. Local democracy has been the life-blood of political parties on both sides of the House.
The package is biased towards officials. There is gossip about how officials are taking over. I do not sneer at officials, but to have the healthy kind of local government we have known it is necessary for officials to be argued with by people who are in a position to argue with them. The package puts councillors at considerably more of a disadvantage vis-à-vis officials than ever before. For me this is a serious matter.
To sum up, the package before us is, for Scotland, the worst of all possible worlds.

2.27 a.m.

Mr. Ross: I should like to be a fly on the wall when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) meets his father-in-law and has a discussion with him. I am fairly sure that Lord

Wheatley would have something to argue about. I recognise my hon. Friend's courage. He had something to say and he has said it.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend will accept that the package we have tonight is a very different proposition from the Wheatley proposals.

Mr. Ross: I shall come to that.
The Secretary of State said that this is one of the biggest Bills we have had for a long time. I can remember bigger ones. I have had the misfortune to serve on the Committee of at least one of them. There has not been a more important Bill certainly in the last 50 years. It was about 50 years ago that we made a sweeping reorganisation of local government.
I regret that after a fairly good Committee stage, during which at one time the Government completely lost their place and seemed to be reeling from one disaster to another, we have moved on to a Report stage which has been hurried. The Bill affects every part of Scotland and every Member of Parliament. Yet the Committee was one of the smallest we have ever had. We were entitled to far more time in which to consider the Bill in the House.
We are moving from a familiar pattern of local government. That familiar pattern was attacked when it was introduced. I can remember some of the things that were said when the old parish councils were wiped out. I lived through 1929 and all the changes that took place. I was brought up in a local government home, and similar predictions were made. There were similar rivalries between burghs and county councils in which changes took place, from which after 50 years we have never quite escaped.
The decision taken in Committee about Fife was very upsetting, not simply from the point of view of the former division of Fife but from the point of view of two other areas affected—Tayside and the Forth area. That decision will linger not only there but in other places which, if they had conducted a publicity campaign on the same lines, might have been just as successful with a Government prepared to bend to local pressure.
Let the Secretary of State not misunderstand the position. My right hon.


Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) received the Wheatley Report as Prime Minister and I welcomed it on behalf of the Labour Government. I accepted its general principles, and still do. But that did not mean that I accepted all the details. I hoped that in preparation of the Bill we would even out some matters. But this Bill did not turn out to be Wheatley. Wheatley insisted, for example, on the unity of Orkney, Shetland, the Highlands and the Western Isles for economic and industrial development, and we have not got that. We have an independent Orkney, an independent Shetland, and a truncated Western Isles. It may have been right—in certain aspects it probably was—to deal with the islands in this way but could it not have been done in a way which achieved the unity which is now even more necessary than when the Wheatley Commission was sitting?
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) was a member of the Wheatley Commission. He appreciates that with the changes taking place in the north of Scotland, affecting the whole of the North and the Western Isles, we should have retained a unity of control of development in that area. The Government have floundered over the oil issue and have not done what was needed in the North, but there is time yet to do it, and I urge them to look at this again in another place.
Wheatley also put the Borders along with the southern part of Fife and Edinburgh, to that extent providing a counterbalance to Strathclyde, and, of course, it is a natural community. So is Ayrshire, and one can say the same of other parts of Scotland. It is the Government's failure to stand by Wheatley which has caused difficulties.
The independent island areas are not viable. Indeed, even if one put them together they would not be viable—Wheatley deceived himself on that issue. The Borders is not viable. The Secretary of State himself has recognised the need for certain contacts with other areas in fire and police services and other matters. Let us not deceive ourselves that in this Bill we have the perfect pattern. We have not nibbled at Wheatley; it was to a certain extent eaten away before we even started. But the Govern-

ment made it worse by some of their actions.
However, I do not despair that we shall not be able to get anything out of the Bill. But let us not think that everything is wonderful. We must accept that people move out of their areas. People move from the area in which I live to Glasgow and near the ICI plant. Over a wide area they make a demand for services which are not provided where they live. Such services are often provided miles away from the area where they work.
For example, to provide the services necessary for development in North Ayrshire the water had to come from South Ayrshire. We cannot deal with such problems and get the kind of development which is needed with the pattern of local government which we have. From that point of view any change would be bound to create difficulties and hardship for some.
The Government have not failed but made a misjudgment. The Royal Commission made a misjudgment when it concluded that there is a limit to size and the provision of certain services. For some services connected with planning and other matters it would have been possible to make Strathclyde even larger. It is true that we are waiting for Kilbrandon. Lord Kilbrandon's father wrote a good book on the reform of local government in Scotland. It may be that the solution is that provided by James Edward Shaw or something which will fit in with what his son may bring forward.
We should not despair. There is still hope that my noble Friend Lord Hughes in another place will press for changes to be made to make some sense of the relationship between size and personal services. That is one of the great weaknesses in respect of Strathclyde. There is time for repentance.
Of paramount importance is the quality of the men who will serve.

Mr. Younger: indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State shake or nod his head. I do not want to give the impression that he is asleep. He could have contributed more to establish confidence. There was a report in 1969


and Second Reading took place during December last year. The Committee stage started on 23rd January. Here we are, and we still have not determined the allowances which will be received by those who serve. That is not good enough.
If we get the right men I am sure that they will be able to face the difficulties which will arise. There will be difficulties from the start. If we do not get the right men there will be disaster before we finish and we shall be back here trying to sort matters out. If we get the right men and they see the difficulties, they will hammer at the doors of St. Andrew's House to ensure that the right changes are effected.
From that point of view I ask my hon. Friends not to be too gloomy. We must put our faith in Scotsmen and their practical ability to deal with the problems which will arise. At the same time I suggest that during the next stage the Government should reconsider the serious problems which have been raised. We do not raise them out of any party feeling. In Committee, for the greater part there was cross voting. That applied even during the Report stage. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken that too hard. He made the mistake of taking too much to heart his defeat on one particular amendment. The matter should have been put to the test and it should have been put right. He has to be careful how he reacts on this point, in view of some of the things that have been said.
I hope that, in further stages of the Bill, the Secretary of State will listen to justified criticisms about lack of balance in these proposals, the size of particular areas and the question of achieving, where required, even some of the further unity of development that is necessary in large parts of Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

CENTRAL STATION, MANCHESTER

2.42 a.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The House will recall that I and my hon. Friends representing Manchester constituencies had the following motion on the Order Paper for debate on 23rd March this year:
That this House is deeply disquieted by reports that the disposal of Manchester Central Station by British Railways has already led to the making of substantial private profit, insists that the public are entitled to full information on the disposal of public property, including the price at which it is sold and the conditions agreed for the sale, recalls that the Manchester Central Station property was sought by Manchester Corporation for important community projects, and calls upon the Secretary of State to institute immediate inquiries into the future of this property which will take fully into account the social need for its retention in public ownership.
Unfortunately, my motion was not reached because of the time spent by the House in debating the previous motion. The Minister may, however, be interested to know that I have heard only one slight but constructive criticism of the motion, namely, that it was phrased in terms of the utmost moderation.
With good reason, there is strong feeling among representative people in Manchester on this deeply important matter. This strong feeling arises from both the handling of the sale of the Manchester Central Station property and numerous press reports of enormous profits made from its almost immediate resale.
The property is of considerable importance to the city of Manchester. The site is one of some 23 acres and was capable, if the city of Manchester's bid had succeeded, of providing many new amenities without sacrificing the need for open space in a crowded and commercial city centre. Once the busiest of the four main line stations in Manchester, the station was the terminus of the London Midland line from St. Pancras and was surpassed only by St. Pancras itself in the size of its train shed.
The station was closed in 1968, when the line was superseded by the high-speed electrified line from London, Euston to Manchester, Piccadilly. After the closure, although the station is a listed building,


its uncertain future soon became the subject of unreported negotiation between unnamed property developers, unnamed architects and unnamed officials of British Rail. Although public property was at stake, the public knew little, if anything of what was going on. Genuine information was scarcer than roast beef among old-age pensioners. Only the grapevine flourished.
Manchester Corporation twice made an offer for the property. The second is said not even to have been rejected in writing when it was first disclosed that the property had been sold to an unnamed property company. The much respected chairman of Manchester City Council's planning committee, Councillor Keith Eastham, commented as follows:
It is really a disgraceful way to treat the city. It is a contemptuous way of doing business. British Rail have never had the courtesy to come back and positively say that our offer, which was a fair one, was rejected".
Manchester Corporation's interest in the property was informed by a keen desire to ensure, first, that the site would be developed in the public interest, and secondly, that the public rather than property speculators would benefit from rising property values.
We are now told that the site was privately acquired for the largest single development project in the history of the city. It is reported that between £30 million and £40 million will be spent on developing the site. The plans are said to include provision for 1 million square feet of office space, housing accommodation for 300 people, shopping space, and an exhibition hall. With the city of Manchester's still agonising housing problems it seems especially wrong, not to say scandalous, that the new housing development is to be placed in other hands.
The strong feeling excited by the manner of the disposal of Manchester Central Station reflects widespread public anxiety about the future of other buildings in the city. Of the distinguished buildings in Central Manchester, including even listed buildings within conservation areas, most are now vulnerable to the pressures of redevelopment.
Mr. Robert Waterhouse reported in The Guardian of 16th July, last:
Apart from the Town Hall, the John Ryland library, Manchester Cathedral and Chetham's School, there is not one building which is totally secure.

After the long and silent dealings with property developers, Manchester Corporation was first informed that the Central Station property had been purchased by McCrea Holdings Limited. In fact, the building was bought by Arkle Holdings Limited. Although Manchester City Council, as the planning authority, cannot impose a condition on prospective purchasers that they must, before purchase, consult the authority about their proposals for the use of property, except among speculative purchasers sound business sense normally dictates that consultation takes place. Arkle Holdings did not consult the planning authority.

Mr. Frank McElhone: I have read with some interest about this case and I should like to ask my hon. Friend if he is aware that the disclosures he has made are disturbing, and call for an immediate public inquiry.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are further disclosures that I wish to make. I am certain that the Under-Secretary will have taken very careful note of the point made by my hon. Friend.
On 8th February 1973, the parliamentary journalist, Roger Carroll, reported in the Sun:
Tycoon Patrick McCrea has netted a quick £1 million in an amazing British Rail property deal … Irish-born Mr. McCrea, aged 35, was a ship's cook before he moved into the property business. He formed Arkle Holdings last year to buy Manchester's … Central Station from British Rail.
Mr. Carroll also reported that the price at which the property was sold was £2,700,000 plus an allowance for inflation and development. He went on:
Mr. McCrea and his associates promptly resold to the English and Continental Property Company for an extra £1 million. A little more than half the £1 million made on the deal went to Mr. McCrea's bankers, Dalton Barton. Since the sale, Dalton Barton have been taken over by Keyser Ullman. the big City bank headed by Mr. Edward Du Cann, chairman of the Tory back-benchers' 1922 Committee.
Here it is interesting, and also disturbing, to note that Keyser Ullman is a direct financial contributor to the Conservative Party.
Similar reports to Mr. Carroll's appeared in other newspapers, notably in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mirror. There was then a denial by Mr. McCrea. However, we were not told by


Mr. McCrea just how much profit had been made by the quick—some would have said "slick"—change of ownership. What is definite is that the property was resold to the English and Continental Property Company for more than £3 million.
A spokesman for the English and Continental Property Company told the Manchester Evening News earlier this year:
The only reason we acquired Arkle was because of the Central Station.… We have every intention of developing the site.
It is my strong conviction that the public are entitled to full information on the disposal of public property. If, as several highly responsible newspapers have reported, huge profits are being made from the disposal of public assets, we are entitled to know who is making them. Why should the people of this country be left so completely in the dark about the disposal of their own property?
The Minister for Transport Industries will recall that I have put it to him in the House that the appropriate local authority should have the option of buying surplus railway property at valuation. He was asked to give a general direction to British Rail to this effect. He refused to do so. I have also put it to him that the sale of such property should be handled in a much more satisfactory manner than has been the case with Manchester Central Station.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will now tell us why we could not have been informed from the outset, first, to which company Manchester Central Station was sold by British Rail, and at what price; secondly, whether the property is in the same ownership and, if not, at what price and profit it was resold; thirdly, whether the city of Manchester's bid for the property was turned down on financial grounds alone.
In the light of this debate, the hon. Gentleman may now agree that full disclosure is a matter of urgent necessity. In correspondence, his right hon. Friend has told me that the figures quoted in the Press are misleading. If he can say that, why cannot he give the correct figures? I appreciate his difficulties, but why is he unable to disclose more information about the handling of this deal? Is he aware that there are now insistent demands from the Greater Manchester area

that we must break down the wall of secrecy surrounding the disposal of public property?
I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will want to remind the House that the public interest in the development of the Manchester Central Station site could be safeguarded by powers exercisable by Manchester Corporation as the local planning authority. But why should the planning authority already have been treated so scurvily in the handling of the sale? Is this in the interests either of the ultimate purchasers of the property or of the general public?
I remind the Minister that Manchester Central Station was closed in 1968. For a long period, the city council has lost rates on a very valuable site. Moreover, the deterioration of the site became so marked that on 6th June 1972 the city planning officer felt it necessary to report his deep concern to the Historic Buildings Panel and the planning committee. In his report, he drew the attention of the planning committee to the fact that the repair of damage that had been caused to the historic train hall as a result of a fire had not been carried out. He reported further that upon a tour of inspection with representatives of British Rail, on 21st March 1972, these representatives had stated:

(1) British Rail had no fire insurance policies.
(2) They did not intend to put right the damage done in the recent fire.
(3) They had no maintenance plan for the station.
(4) They had no plans to carry out any works of maintenance and repair.

I understand that these statements were confirmed in writing by the district estates surveyor on 26th May 1972, when he stated that whilst the future of the property remained uncertain he was unable to recommend his management to undertake remedial works to that part of the structure about which the conservation panel had complained.
Is all this not deserving of some ministerial action and inquiry?
I turn now to the reported terms of sale of the property. If my figures are wrong, the Minister may like to correct them. If he cannot do so, I shall be grateful to him if he will inform the House what he believes to be the correct figures.
The terms of sale by British Rail are reported to have been £2·7 million, plus a share of the equity up to a maximum of £1·75 million, depending upon the amount of office accommodation it was possible to develop on the site. In the absence of some indication in writing from the planning authority, it is incredible that these terms of sale could have been agreed.
If the reported terms of sale are correct, they now place both English and Continental Property Company and the planning committee in an invidious position. The developer will be bound to press for the maximum amount of office accommodation to produce sufficient equity to give British Rail a further £l¾ million. If the planning authority thinks that office accommodation can be allowed only at a certain level, which I am sure it will, it must be questionable whether British Rail has in fact sold at the best price.
Again, what happens if the developer and the planning department finally decide that the site should be developed for purposes other than office accommodation? Does this mean that British Rail will not obtain anything above the £2·7 million? I understand that English and Continental obtains funds from the Crown Agents. I am not, however, sure that it is funded from that source with regard to the Manchester Central Station property. If it is, the situation has arisen where one public authority has sold to another public authority, with a third person being allowed to make an unwarranted profit. If English and Continental is unable to produce a development that is acceptable to the planning authority, is it then going to market the property again? Does this also mean that there will be continuing neglect of this very important city site, which is already an eyesore, and that it will continue to deteriorate?
I am sure that the Minister will agree that, in this case, there is a legitimate cause for public concern and for an inquiry. If he argues that he has no powers to institute an inquiry, he should seek such powers as a matter of urgency.
In a letter dated 21st March of this year the Minister told me:
The property was sold to the highest bidder.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not satisfied that that is so. He knows that prominent Mancunians—including a former Lord Mayor of the City—and a Manchester businessman who himself made a bid for the property, would argue that British Rail did not accept the highest bid. The businessman to whom I refer strongly maintains that he made the highest bid and that it was rejected.
Whatever the Minister's reply is tonight, the pressure for an inquiry will persist if he is unable to ease the genuine concern that has been aroused by this deal. The whole question of land profits is a deeply sensitive issue outside this House. It was recently found by Counter Information Services that five men, between them, had made £125 million out of property deals. The five men are Mr. Harry Hyams, owner of the controversial Centre Point office block; Mr. Robert Clarke, a director of Stock Conversion; Mr. Joseph Levy, Chairman of Stock Conversion; Mr. Maurice Wohl, Chairman of United Real Property Trust; and Lord Samuel, Chairman of Land Securities Investment Trust. The report from Counter Information Services says that everyone in London has paid, directly or indirectly, for the fortunes of these five men.
A member of the group—Mr. Michael Armitage, an accountant—has said:
The five men we have named are greedy. But we live in a society based on greed. We are all to blame for letting it happen.
The House must now correct the abuses that support conclusions of this kind. In asking for a constructive response from the Minister, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the subject of this debate is directly related to a much bigger problem, on which the people now want effective action from this House. I understand the heavy pressures upon the Minister and I am grateful to him for being here at this late hour. This debate is an occasion for parliamentary stayers, as whom the Minister is certainly one. I trust that he will feel able to reply constructively and sympathetically to my call for a thorough-going inquiry into this most disquieting affair.

3.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I am


grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for his closing remarks and for the way in which he has raised this important subject of the disposal of Manchester Central Station. From what he has said it is clear that misunderstandings have arisen, and I welcome this opportunity to try to clear them up and put the matter into perspective.
In his opening remarks the hon. Member was particularly concerned about the station's future. I recognise that this is a matter of considerable public interest and concern, not least to the citizens of Manchester, which the hon. Member and other hon. Members represent. But I must make it clear at the outset that at this moment the station's future is a matter for decision by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
As the House is aware, British Railways have sold the station. I understand that the company that bought it—The English and Continental Property Co. Ltd.—is actively discussing its development plans with the local planning authority—Manchester Corporation—and that the possibilities include offices, residential, hotel and exhibition accommodation, shops, parking and open space.
I gather that as matters stand at present the corporation sees no reason to doubt that a satisfactory scheme will be evolved to form the basis of a formal planning application. Once the application is received, it will almost certainly be given a great deal of publicity by the corporation, since it seems likely to involve a substantial departure from the development plan which, of course, marks the site as a railway station. Publicity would also be required if the application involved demolition of, or substantial alteration to, the station building which, as hon. Members will know, is listed as of special architectural or historic interest.
So, at the stage when the planning application is made, anyone with an interest in the station's future will have an opportunity of expressing it to the local planning authority, which will take what he says fully into account before reaching a decision.
Thus, if the hon. Gentleman—or any other hon. Member—wishes to press his views on the future of the station, the

appropriate course is for him to make them known to the Manchester City Corporation, which is in the best position to take an informed view about what is in the interest of the local community and can safeguard the public interest by means of planning controls. Furthermore, I understand that the developers—the English and Continental Property Co. Ltd.—would be willing and, indeed, have made an offer, to have discussions with the hon. Gentleman about what they have in mind for the site.
The House will appreciate that at the present time it would be inappropriate for the Government to adopt a particular attitude on the station's future. Should the planning application come before my right hon. and learned Friend on appeal or call-in, or because development involved the demolition of, or substantial alteration to, a listed building, there would almost certainly be a public inquiry, and my right hon. and learned Friend would then have to form a view and take a decision. In the meantime, therefore, it is important that both he and I maintain an open mind on the matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate our situation.
The hon. Member said that the site was sought by the city corporation for important community projects. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues believe that there is a social need for its retention in public ownership in one form or another. I again suggest, with respect, that, if that is what he feels—or what anyone else in Manchester feels is the case—he ought to talk to the corporation about it. The corporation has made no complaints to me or to my right hon. and learned Friend, and this is not surprising because, if there is a problem here, the remedy would appear to have been in its hands. It has the necessary statutory powers to acquire by agreement, or compulsorily, any land it needs for essential community projects, and the procedures under which the land may be acquired include a built-in provision for the holding of a public inquiry, where this is appropriate, to examine the case for public ownership.
My latest information, however, is that the city corporation is no longer seeking ownership of this important site, but that its main concern—and this is


understandable—is to do what it can to ensure that it is developed in a fitting manner as soon as possible, not least for some of the reasons of maintenance and general appearance of the station, upon which the hon. Gentleman remarked. I gather that the current development plans, if implemented with the corporation's approval, would go some way towards meeting the requirements that the corporation had in mind when it made its original offer to buy the property.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the main points in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the property deal itself and reports in the Press that substantial private profit was made out of the sale of the station. A figure of £1 million was mentioned, and this is apparently derived from reports that British Rail sold the property for £2·7 million to a company—Arkle Holdings Limited—whose total assets have been acquired by another company—English and Continental Property Company Limited—at a price quoted in a newspaper as £3·7 million. I do not know what other assets were taken over in addition to Manchester Central Station, but I understand that representatives of both companies concerned denied that profits of this magnitude were involved. I am in no position myself to end such speculation by giving the actual figures because, as is the normal practice in matters of this kind, the contractual details are commercially confidential and ought not to be revealed except with the consent of both parties to the contract.
However, I have been authorised to say on behalf of British Railways that their contract of sale as was hinted at by the hon. Gentleman, provided not only for a basic price for the site plus expenses but also for substantial additional payments depending on the area of office space constructed on the site by the developer, and this important consideration was not, on the whole, taken into account in the Press reports. I am told that on the basis of plans now being discussed by the proposed developer with Manchester Corporation—I cannot comment on this, for the reasons that I have given—the full return to British Railways will be broadly comparable with the figures quoted in the Press as the price paid to the company that first bought the property

from British Railways. Thus, I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on the points that persuaded him to press for publication of the terms of the sale by British Railways.
I also remind the House that it has been the policy of successive Governments that the British Railways Board should act as far as possible in a commercial manner. This is under a statutory obligation, embodied in Section 41 of the Transport Act 1968, to pay its way, taking one year with another. In pursuance of this objective in its property transactions it established the British Rail property board in 1969, expressly to ensure that its land resources are used in the most beneficial way. This is not a separate entity, but a British Railways management division whose members are appointed by the main board and include several with outside business experience in property and financial affairs.
It would not be consistent with the Government policy that I have mentioned to treat the board in these matters on a more restrictive basis than private property owners by requiring it to make the details of all its contracts subject to public scrutiny. Contractual relationships are traditionally treated as commercially confidential, and I see no justification on the evidence of this particular case, or for any other reason, to deny the Railways Board this privilege.
Moreover, the board carries out hundreds of such sales annually. I am told it has sold over 20,000 acres in the past three years, giving a return of nearly £50 million, and in none of these transactions has there been, to my knowledge, any suggestion of impropriety.
To compel British Railways to publish details of each sale would impose upon them a heavy additional administrative burden which their competitors do not have to bear, and would slow down their sales of surplus land just when they are gaining a desirable increase in momentum. We all know the problems of British Railways, and we ought not to hamper them in a way in which their competitors are not hampered.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not a principle of public policy that the public are entitled to know the facts about the


disposal of public property? Is this not something that we should look at very carefully, as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Speed: At the end of the day British Railways produce accounts and are answerable to Parliament in that way. I feel that in day-to-day management of property or other affairs we should not expose them to the full public gaze in a way that no other company is exposed. It would hamper British Railways at a time when we should be giving them maximum support and help in facing their very difficult problems rather than hindering them in the most desperate way commercially. The public interest in property sales by British Railways and other nationalised industries is safeguarded by voluntary agreements under

which in the first instance they offer the property to the local authorities in whose areas it is situated.
Price is, of course, subject to negotiation, and if agreement cannot be reached the nationalised industries are free, as matter of management, to sell the property by such other means as they think fit—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twelve minutes past Three o'clock a.m.

Second Reading Committee

Tuesday 19th June 1973

[CAPTAIN WALTER ELLIOT in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Captain Walter Elliot (in the Chair)


Armstrong, Mr. Ernest (Durham, Northwest).
Murton, Mr. Oscar (Poole).



Nott, Mr. John (Minister of State, Treasury).


Atkinson, Mr. Norman (Tottenham).



Baxter, Mr. William (West Stirlingshire).
Parkinson, Mr. Cecil (Enfield, West).


Cant, Mr. R. B. (Stoke-on-Trent, Central).
Parry, Mr. Robert (Liverpool, Exchange).



Reed, Mr. Laurance (Bolton, East).


Dixon, Mr. Piers (Truro).
Rees, Mr. Peter (Dover).


Dunnett, Mr. Jack (Nottingham, Central).
Ridley, Mr. Nicholas (Cirencester and Tewkesbury).


Forrester, Mr. John (Stoke-on-Trent. North).
Trew, Mr. Peter (Dartford).


Green, Mr. Alan (Preston, South).
Wainwright, Mr. Edwin (Dearne Valley).


Grieve, Mr. Percy (Solihull).
Walden, Mr. Brian (Birmingham, All Saints).


Le Marchant, Mr. Spencer (The High Peak).




Mr. M. R. Jack, Committee Clerk.

GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS BILL

10.30 a.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Government Trading Funds Bill ought to be read a Second time.
This is a modest Bill. It provides for a change in the method of financing a restricted range of Government activities. But I hope that, for all its modesty, it will make a useful contribution to the task of improving the efficiency of Government administration, without reducing parliamentary control.
There are two antecedents to the proposals in the Bill. The first is the Fulton concept of "accountable management"

which means the holding of individual units responsible for their performance. The Fulton Committee argued that the relevant parts of Departments should be reorganised so that responsibility and authority were defined and allocated more clearly, and so that the output of the organisation could be measured against cost and other criteria. It remarked that this must involve an addition to the traditional accounting methods of Departments.
The other antecedent to the Bill is the Government's statement on the machinery of government in the White Paper "The Reorganisation of Central Government" (Cmnd. 4506). Like our predecessors, we considered that the


development of "accountable units of management" performing the executive tasks of government would both be conducive to more efficient government and be more satisfying for the public servants whose task it was to operate them.
The Bill is concerned, therefore, with a particular group of services or organisations which the Government think ought to be developed in the form of accountable units of management. They are all carrying out trading activities. But they are trading activities which are so directly involved with the main process of government that we consider that they ought to remain the direct responsibility of Ministers and not be hived-off as statutorily distinct bodies.
I need hardly remind the Committee of the principles underlying the present system of financing these services, namely, the parliamentary system of Supply. Over the greater part of the Government's expenditure this system is simple, appropriate and effective and we certainly do not wish to propose any general change in it.
But there have been two respects in which the Supply system does not match the characteristics of a trading activity. The Appropriation Accounts by themselves do not provide an adequate basis for assessing the performance of a trading organisation, and a system of management control suitable for a trading operation is not readily reconcilable with the cash system inherent in Votes.
The first criticism has been recognised for many years. The Appropriation Accounts in particular do not provide an adequate basis for assessing the performance of a trading activity, because they do not show how it has managed its capital assets. To meet this, trading accounts were introduced—in one case in the last century. These trading accounts, have, in general, served their initial purpose of giving Parliament better information about the results of these trading activities. In some cases there are improvements in the form of the trading accounts which would make them more effective for that purpose, and work on this is in hand.
However, while one purpose of accounts is to show how an organisation has performed, another ought to be to

allow, and indeed encourage, management to improve its performance. The main criticism of the trading accounts in their present form is that they have not done this. They have not generally provided a very effective spur to management in commercial terms. Trading accounts have had little or no effect on management in those cases where they have merely been compiled from the traditional Vote accounts after the end of the year.
In these circumstances they have been little more than an interesting analytical exercise coming too late to have much influence on decisions. They have had more effect on management in those cases, notably the Royal Ordnance Factories, where there has been a comprehensive system of management accounts, with regular reporting during the year, and where the trading accounts have been derived from them. Work is already in hand in all the other organisations named in the Bill in order to develop their system of management accounts, and to derive future trading accounts from them. So this deficiency is at least being made good.
But the improvement of management accounts and trading accounts will not overcome a more fundamental difficulty. A system of control exclusively related to cash flows cuts across the desirable pattern of management control in a trading situation involving the use of substantial capital assets. The control should be directed to the effectiveness with which the organisation meets the needs of its users, and to the return which it is obtaining on the capital assets which it is employing.
Because the parliamentary authority for expenditure, and so the statutory constraint on the manager, still relates to those gross and net cash inputs, funded from their Department's Votes, managers have, very properly, had to pay attention to a cash control relating to that limited part of their total expenditure, and they have tended to give this too great priority compared with achieving maximum effectiveness as shown in their management accounts. Experience has been that, even when the problem has been recognised and there has been an understanding that a liberal view should be taken for requests for Supplementary Estimates, middle and lower management has sometimes tended


to avoid taking an action which might lead to a Supplementary Estimate, although it made good economic sense in terms of the purpose of the organisation.
The Mallabar Committee on Government Industrial Establishments particularly investigated this point when it visited the Royal ordnance factories. It was forced to conclude that
while the Vow accounting system does not prevent the ROFs from being efficient…it does not contribute to the achievement of efficiency.
It was this which led that committee to recommend the adoption of a trading fund for the Royal ordance factories and subsequently for the Royal dockyards.
The Bill is intended to bring the method of financing for these trading activities into line with the desirable method of managing organisations which have significant capital assets. At this stage we ask ourselves what should be the essential elements of a Bill to deal with the problem I have described.
The first point is that an organisation operating a funded service should have standing authority to apply its receipts to meet its outgoings, and would no longer have to rely on votes for its own expenditure. Secondly, it would pay, and be paid for, all the goods and services which it receives and provided.
Thirdly, it would have an initial capital debt to the National Loans Fund which, taken with any element of public dividend capital, would be equal to the net current value of the assets and liabilities transferred to it. The trading fund would have from its earnings to service that debt and pay dividends on any public dividend capital. Fourthly, it would be able to borrow from the National Loans Fund, within limits, to meet any need to increase its capital and also to meet its short-term financing requirements. It would also be able to carry over cash balances from one year to the next and to invest any cash temporarily surplus to its requirements. It would be able, if Ministers so decided, to plough back some or all of its revenue surplus into the business.
Fifthly, the Bill provides that a trading fund would have to break even, taking one year with another, and, furthermore, would have to meet specified finan-

cial targets. Sixthly, if a Department required a service which would otherwise be loss-making to be maintained, it would have to pay the trading fund a specific subsidy from its Vote.
The standing authority to apply receipts to expenditure removes the inhibitions on management caused by the existing control on cash expenditure on inputs. The fact that all the costs centred in the trading accounts will correspond to actual outgoings, especially the servicing on the capital, should help to focus managements' attention on the trading and management accounts, and on the return which they will be obtaining on the capital employed.
Turning to the Bill itself; I emphasise that it is an enabling Bill. It provides that orders may be made introducing trading funds for each of the six services named in the Bill, and for any other trading service within government. The order introducing a trading fund for a particular service would be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. It would specify the borrowing limits and whether there should be any element of public dividend capital in the initial capital structure. Given this, I would not propose to justify now the arguments for a trading fund in any particular case. Indeed, the Government are not yet committed in some cases, such as the Ordnance Survey, to going over to using a trading fund. But we thought it right to name explicitly in the Bill all those organisations for which the Government at present consider there to be a serious possibility of a trading fund in order that the House may have as good an idea as possible of what is at issue.
We have also included as a matter of contingency a provision in Clause 1(3)(g) for the extension to other trading services, although we have no particular services in mind for this at present. It would seem wrong to exclude at this stage the possibility of extending the trading fund method of finance to other services, which will probably be relatively minor ones, in case further work on their organisation and management suggests that the trading fund would be sensible for them too. In every case, because of the affirmative resolution procedure, the House would have an opportunity to consider the merits.
The timing of introducing trading funds will also vary from place to place as it is dependent on a number of other changes in the organisation and management of the services concerned. In particular, it depends on the development of an adequate system of management accounts and trading accounts in those cases where this has not already been completed.
If Parliament approves the Bill this Session, and subject to completion of the necessary preparatory work, we hope to lay a draft order providing for a trading fund for the Royal ordnance factories from 1st April 1974 at about the turn of the year. Work on some of the other services might take up to a further two or three years.
I do not think that at this stage the Committee would necessarily wish me to go through the Bill clause by clause. If hon. Members have any questions on separate clauses, I shall, if I catch your eye, Captain Elliot, and have the Committee's permission, answer them later.
Before concluding I ought to touch quickly on two maters which may be of particular interest to the Committee, namely, public dividend capital and answerability to Parliament.
Clause 2 provides that the order establishing a fund may provide that part of the initial net assets of the organisation should be matched by public dividend capital rather than by a debt to the National Loans Fund. The Government have noted the recent criticisms of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries of the way in which public dividend capital has been used in one particular instance in the past. The Government are of course considering the recommendation of the Select Committee that we should review the operation of public dividend capital, and will be replying in due course to the Committee. But we think that in the meantime it would be wrong to exclude the possibility of having an element of such capital for at least some of those services. If members of the Committee have any questions on this matter, I should be happy to answer them.
The second subject is accountability to Parliament. A service transferred to a

trading fund is likely, if anything, to be made more accountable rather than less. The answerability of the trading funds to Parliament will be reduced only to the limited extent that they will no longer produce Estimates and Appropriation Accounts. But we should expect that the whole group of measures which go together under the title of "Accountable Management" would offset this.
While the trading fund organisations will no longer be directly financed from Votes, their gross investment programmes will be part of public expenditure, and so it would be open to the Expenditure Committee, or one of its sub-committees, to investigate them if it so wished.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: They will presumably publish reports and accounts annually?

Mr. Nott: Most certainly.
The accounts of the organisation will continue to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and will therefore be subject to scrutiny not only by the House itself, but by the Public Accounts Committee. We hope that the accounts will become more significant and useful, and the Bill provides for them to be supplemented by additional information about the overall performance of the organisation, probably in the form known in the jargon as "performance indicators". That is something on which we are working.
The trading fund organistion will remain the direct responsibility of Ministers and the staff will remain civil servants. It will be possible, as now, for hon. Members to put down Questions or write to a Minister about the organisation's activities. Following the passage of the Bill, there will first be the orders setting up the particular trading fund and as I have said, this will require an affirmative resolution.
Any subsequent increase in the borrowing limit for a particular organisation will require an order subject to a negative resolution procedure. In due course, if the trading fund system is a success, it will be necessary to introduce new legislation to increase the present borrowing limit of £250 million. This will give the House an opportunity to review the operation of the whole system.
I commend the Bill to the Committee as one which will make a modest but useful step in the direction of improved management and accountability of certain trading funds within government.

10.45 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I should like to give the Bill a warm welcome and say only that my hon. Friend moved it too apologetically and claimed that it was modest. He even seemed to be on the defensive about it, whereas to me it is far too small a step and I should like to see much more progress in this direction.
I always find it extraordinary, with half the administration and economy of the country in the hands of the State, that we spend so much time arguing about the efficiency of the private sector, putting in management consultants and generally arguing about how we can improve the performance of the private sector, with no thought or time at all spent on trying to improve the performance of the public sector.
When the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) wants to take the 25 leading private companies into public ownership, it occurs to me that he might achieve greater efficiency if he were to take 25 leading trading organisations from the public sector back into private ownership. There is no doubt in my mind that the efficiency of our public sector is abysmal, not only in industry, but in the administration of many services performed by the State. That thinking and legislation should be starting, designed to improve the performance of the public sector, is a development that I welcome strongly.
What I should like to see is the splitting-up of the public sector into its component functions. The first thing to do is to analyse what are the various services provided. My hon. Friend is right to choose the six services mentioned in the Bill, because they are readily identifiable and readily separable from the mass of the public administration. But there is no reason why we should not carry this process a great deal further and separate out a large number of activities that could be established with trading funds and made to perform as separate organisations.
Secondly, we must have more disclosure. I am delighted to hear that there is to be disclosure in the private sector, but certainly there must be a great more disclosure in the public sector. Until the various functions of the services are separated out it is impossible, but when that has been done, each must be required to put down on paper its financial results and general progress in administering its service.
Thirdly—and this is the first point where increased efficiency comes into the argument—we must have motivation within the public sector units to increase the efficiency of the service provided. It seems to be impossible to achieve the proper motivation for efficiency until the units have, first, been identified and, secondly, increased disclosure.
The basic requirement of managing a service is that it should employ the capital in the business in the proper fashion. That cannot be done unless the trading fund organisation has a capital structure and complete financial autonomy. The secret of success in a free enterprise economy is that organisations that need more capital borrow it to employ it profitably, and organisations that need less capital lend it to others which can employ it more profitably. I should like to see the public sector go that far so that it takes, borrows and lends capital surplus to its requirements in order to ensure the proper use of the State's capital.
Whether public dividend capital is relevant to this I sometimes doubt. Certainly, I should not like to come to a firm conclusion, but in our experience, limited though it is hitherto, it has so often been the case that public dividend capital is used as an excuse for a nationalised industry not to pay interest on its capital, probably not through its own fault, but because the Government have been leaning on the prices of its products. I am not so sure whether it is relevant in the new direction which the Government are taking by the Bill, but if my hon. Friend can build into his new structures the free movement of capital among various parts of the public sector, he will be achieving a major contribution to increasing efficiency.
It is regrettable, however, that the Bill does not include freedom for the trading


fund organisations to pay the going wage or salary rate. I believe that the employees should continue to be civil servants and that if it is necessary to hire a manager or a plumber, a skilled welder or a clerk, the organisation should be free to pay the going rate and to make such pension and fringe benefits arrangements as suit that service, not be dictated to by the general level of Civil Service agreements. As I say, I am sad that it does not include freedom for the organisations to borrow and lend capital with that quickness and skill which is the essential feature of a successful organisation.
The third feature—I regret its absence from the Bill—is that there is no attempt yet to motivate those who will manage these fixed services so that they are on the side of increasing the efficiency of their organisations. If one runs a large block of State trading or State service, the basic motivation deep in the mind of the person who runs it is the hope that he may one day have a bigger organisation. That is empire building and it is this desire to see one's corner grow and expand which is probably the main psychological motivation of those who are in charge.
It should, of course, be the other way round. The motivation should be to reduce the numbers of people employed and the amount of materials and capital consumed in order to provide the cheapest possible service, thereby leaving a greater amount available for those who have done the management. There is about to be published a book by an American professor which advocates three degrees of motivation for public sector organisations such as those mentioned in the Bill.
The first degree would no doubt be unacceptable to the Committee. It is that the managers of a State service should be allowed to keep a proportion of the difference between the selling price of their product and what it has cost them to produce it. This would probably greatly reduce costs in all State services, but I think it would be politically unacceptable at present. I do not know why the idea that somebody could actually make money out of reducing costs, particularly in the public service, is, for some reason, repugnant, but it seems perfectly obvious that if the costs

of naval dockyards could be cut by 10 per cent., it would not be amiss if 1 per cent. of that 10 per cent. went to the managers who had achieved that remarkable result.
If that is unacceptable, the second suggestion is that those who operate public service profitably should be enabled to undertake activities in other public services. For instance, if the manager of the Royal Dockyards succeeds in reducing his costs, he should be allowed to go into the employment exchange business, or the management of State pensions, so that he may demonstrate that by his skill and efforts he was able to reduce costs not only in his own field, but in others. That would satisfy his desire for empire building and at the same time would have the effect of reducing costs throughout the public service.
The third suggestion is that it might be possible to base the rewards of the managers of a State service not on finance but on terms of status. The man who got his costs down 10 per cent.—the man who runs the Royal Mint might get his costs down by 10 per cent.—would be given a Bentley, but the man who did not succeed in reducing his costs would have only a Mini-Minor. The quality of the carpet on office floors, the pictures on the walls, are all things which motivate civil servants, and it would seem to me perfectly right and proper, if we are not prepared to go as far as financial rewards for the successful, to give amenities rewards instead.
The Government are the main customer of all of the six services mentioned and there is no market price for the repair of ships or the Royal Ordnance Factories or the minting of coins, so it is not so easy to determine the price which the Government should be charged for the product of the six organisations.
I wish particularly to congratulate the Government on going so far as to force themselves to determine the price for the work done by these six organisations to pay to them because it will not be easy for them to do so, but having done so the Government will be able to assess whether it will be worth while to have coin minted in Cardiff or elsewhere. That would give them the ability to compare the costs of minting by various competing, minters. That is a major step forward,


because it not only gives the trading fund organisation a yardstick by which to judge its efficiency, but it gives the Government a yardstick by which to judge whether they are purchasing services in the cheapest market.
I cannot see why, if we are able to go this far with these six organisations, we should not go as far as treating all those Government organisations which actually sell to the public in the market in exactly the same way. For instance, the Patent Office and Companies House are typical examples of where a trading fund could be set up, and where it could be even easier than for the six items mentioned in the Bill because they already operate commercially with the public. If we are to enter this sphere where the Government are the main customer, let us extend it to the employment exchanges, payment of social security benefits and other government activities where there is room for increased efficiency and motivation of those who manage the service.
I greatly welcome the Bill, but it is far too modest; it does not go nearly far enough. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we have a major task before us to revolutionise the standard of administration and management in the public service. Having settled for having 50 per cent. of our gross national product in public hands, we now have an obligation to increase the efficiency with which that 50 per cent. of our economy is managed.

10.59 a.m.

Mr. Peter Trew: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) I welcome the placing of some of these State activities on a commercial basis. I certainly think that there might be scope for extending the practice.
I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend said about financial incentives. He mentioned the Royal Dockyards. If I have read my naval history correctly, I remember that in the days of sail the ship's purser was allowed to make a profit on the catering. I am not sure that that always led to the highest standard of catering. However, as a principle I would not quarrel with what my hon. Friend has suggested, although I would

steer clear of status symbols such as carpets, the size and shape of desks and whether the tea is served on a tray or trolley, because in private industry these things are often the source of much heartache. I agree that the motivation of those who manage these industries is important and a factor which should be considered.
I have four brief technical questions to put to my hon. Friend arising out of the Bill. First, I should like to know who lays down the financial targets where the requirement goes beyond breaking even. Clause 4 places on the Minister the responsibility for managing these activities. If he is responsible for managing the activities, it is not necessarily right that he should fix the financial target. I should therefore be interested to know who it is who fixes these targets.
Secondly—and this may have been answered elsewhere—what are the limits to the activities of these various undertakings and the extent to which they can diversify and embark on related activities? I think particularly of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which is in publishing and clearly could expand widely. Presumably there are some guidelines to lay down where it can operate, and I should be interested to know of them.
Related to that, does my hon. Friend envisage that there might be circumstances when one of these undertakings might find itself in competition with private enterprise? For instance, I can envisage that the Royal Ordnance Factory might be tendering in competition with a private manufacturerer for the supply of defence equipment to the Government. In such cases it would be important to ensure that tenders were on a strictly comparable basis. It is possible for Government Departments and local authorities to allocate their overheads in a way that enables them to put in favourable tenders and that puts them at an unfair advantage compared with private enterprise.
Related to that question of accounting practice, who will carry out the audit of these companies? Who will ensure, for instance, that they use the correct and prudent procedures for depreciating their plant and equipment?

11.3 a.m.

Mr. R. B. Cant: Owing to the vagaries of one of our nationalised industries it was only yesterday afternoon that I realised I was on this Committee, so I have not considered the Bill in any detail.
We accept that any way in which we can arrange for the more efficient use of our resources is welcome. But I am now slightly sceptical about the magical effects of certain aids brought to the service of people in management. My main interest and experience has been in that other facet of public service, local government. In the last decade we have sought to make local government more efficient. We have had bigger and better computers and I am sure that they have made a notable contribution, although sometimes when I see the staffs manning the computers and the miles of paper consumed by these devices I begin to wonder. They make things possible that would not be possible by the use of the quill pen.
I have no doubt that our management services divisions, which help us to manage our personnel and to organise administration more efficiently, have made an equally massive contribution to the efficiency of local government. But when one sees the large staffs involved in performing this service which exist to assist us in becoming more efficient in the use of our resources, one appreciates that there is no easy, clear-cut path to the objectives we all share.
I should like to make one or two points, although I do not regard myself in any sense as a specialist in this field. I hope that in introducing the various services listed in Clause 3(1) their image will not be destroyed. I do not want to appear sentimental and old-world, but the image of the Royal Mint, the Ordnance Survey and Her Majesty's Stationery Office are things on which as British people we should pride ourselves.
I once served on a Select Committee inquiring into the Royal Mint, and journeying round various establishments one felt there was something slightly Dickensian about certain aspects of the organisation. On the other hand, it is remarkably efficient. It has a reputation for quality and—I am sure this will appeal to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—it has a massive export trade.

Mr. Ridley: Hot management.

Mr. Cant: Of a very tangible kind.
The HMSO is also a most attractive organisation, performing a valuable service. In the last decade it has improved the service to the British people in terms of publication and sale of Government institutions.
The idea that we should drag these organisations screaming into the twentieth century, in terms of their commercial methods, should be viewed with a certain amount of caution, although I concede that something should be done.
But my main concern and worry is that whenever the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury speaks of the nationalised industries he always damns them with very faint praise. It reminds me of a discussion I heard once in America concerning the writer, Nabokov. Someone denied saying that Nabokov was a third-rate author. He screamed, "I never said that Nabokov was a third-rate author; I said he was a second-rate author." I think that the hon. Member has the same sort of attitude to the nationalised industries. He cannot concede that they are efficient in any way.
My misgiving about this development is in part linked with what the hon. Member said. The problem is that once one enters a more commercial field—and we are not transforming these departments into public corporations—and once the accepted management accounting commercial yardstick is applied they should be allowed the sort of freedom that this Government, and to some extent the last Government, never gave them. The hon. Member said that Governments have a tendency to lean on them. I wondered whether we are to have a repetition of what has happened often in the past, when Governments have leaned so heavily on the pricing policies of the nationalised industries that they have not had a chance—

Mr. Ridley: The Government are leaning on the pricing policies of private industry, too.

Mr. Cant: That raises a very important point. The Young Conservatives' bible, the Economist has on a number of occasions, and particularly in its penultimate issue, heavily criticised the Government for being far too lenient with industry and far too tough in other respects.


Those of us who have to meet constituents from time to time notice that there is a subtle discrimination, even in the present context, between the way in which the Government are preventing nationalised industries from increasing their prices, and their attitude towards, say, the manufacturers of fish-fingers where an increase of 20 per cent. is quite acceptable to the Price Commission.
If the Government's policy is to be the same towards these hybrid institutions, is there any sense in trying to apply all these commercial criteria? When we are testing their performance in respect of profits, margins, surpluses, and so on, this is totally unrealistic because we do not allow them to charge the prices they wish to charge.
I have misgivings. All this introduction of public dividend capital to give the enterprise an air of commercialism so that they will take the rough ride into the market place, is rather bogus. I agree to some extent with the hon. Member who made the point that unless we have a flexible pricing policy, allowing the industries to charge the prices they believe to be realistic, all that will happen is that the public dividend capital will be much cheaper than fixed interest capital because no interest will be paid. The British Steel Corporation is enjoying something of a bonanza in this particular respect at present.
Perhaps the phrase "break-even" gives the key to the Government's policy in respect of what will happen to these industries, as has happened to the nationalised industries. They will not suddenly be expected to be imbued with a commercial spirit and to adopt aggressive marketing policies which will substantially increase their profits. They will be trampled down in exactly the same way as nationalised industries are now. The real target they have to aim at is not profitability but this somewhat austere phrase "break-even". Whenever I see the phrase "break-even", I think that we are adopting a policy in which we are seeking the worst of both worlds and in the last resort probably getting it.

11.14 a.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I should have liked to have slightly longer notice of being asked to serve on the Committee. I was informed

only at the weekend and I thought it rather uncharming.
I cannot understand why the Government always give the impression that every system of nationalisation is a failure and therefore we must do something to improve its management and techniques. They do not seem able to prevent themselves from criticising the nationalised industries. I am not certain that the Bill will give the tremendous fillip to the six organisations referred to in it. We are not changing personnel. The same teams are to run the activities. Therefore, we should consider the team running the system at present.
When one compares the productivity of other nations with that of this country, one realises that there is something wrong in private enterprise as well as in the public and nationalised industries. To improve management we have to do more than we are doing at present, and I am not sure that the Bill will do that. It has too much of the dead hand of the Treasury upon it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) spoke about the efficiency of some of the nationalised industries. For instance, if throughout private industry there were the same efficiency as in the coal mining industry undoubtedly this nation would be in a better financial position than it is. However, unfortunately, when coal was in short supply and demand exceeded supply, the Government of the day prevented the National Coal Board from increasing the price of coal, which private enterprise would have done had it been in charge. It is estimated that even that industry was run short of capital of £2,000 million because of the stranglehold that the Government had upon it. I know the answer which is given to that, namely, that if the board had increased the price of coal it would have been priced out of the market sooner. Nevertheless, in spite of its tremendous capital investment, and in spite of its upsurge of productivity, the NCB has always been looked down on by the nation.
Every nationalised industry we have talked about has been controlled by the Government—Labour as well as Conservative Governments. The only time the Government wish to denationalise


an industry is when they talk about hiving-off the more profitable sectors of it. We have to look at the industries independently and not compare them with private enterprise which is often done because they are at a disadvantage. I agree there could be greater efficiency among management than we have at present. But would it give impetus to the organisations we are discussing?
I had to smile when the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) talked about 1 per cent. going to management. Some very small private companies run efficiently and magnificently in what is termed de luxe accommodation. But it is not always there that one can encourage efficiency because one can say, "There's a nice office up the road. I will put you in if you can make your organisation more efficient." We should be very careful when we start talking about office equipment.
In passing, let me say that probably the inflow of personnel into the Civil Service has come from a certain section of the community, yet they are supposed to introduce business ideas to the nation. There are likely to be many people who could develop ideas and make an organisation more efficient, but because they have come from a certain section of the community they have not been allowed to do so. I agree that the Civil Service has widened its ambit of recruitment but it must widen it more in future.
I should like the Minister to explain the provision in Clause 2(4):
…limits in force in respect of all trading funds shall not exceed £250 million at any one time.
Why is it £250 million and not £500 million? Will the Minister say a few words about that when he replies? In Clause 4(6) we see signs of the power of the Treasury. How can a business organisation be run efficiently and commercially when over it is the dead hand of the Treasury? Clause 4(6) states:
The Treasury shall appoint an accounting officer for the fund, with responsibility for keping its accounts and proper records in relation thereto…
—not just for the accounts, but to have a tremendous influence on the running of the organisation's finances, and to make certain that, although the capital invest-

ment is a bit too high, no matter how much investment means to the efficiency of that organisation and to the ideas of the personnel responsible, someone will say, "No, you must not do that; the cost is too high". Therefore, the ideas of the personnel responsible are stultified by the dead hand of the Treasury.
The clause goes on to provide that
the annual statement of accounts shall be in a form approved by the Treasury and contain such additional information with respect to financial results in the previous year as the Treasury may require to be provided for the information of Parliament;". That is the usual phrase and I have often seen it in Bills, but why does it say just "additional information"? Will there be some attempt to restrict information? When a phrase like that appears, I am worried that it means something different from what it says. The additional information might be restrictive information. I hope that the Minister will be able to convince me that I am putting a wrong interpretation on that.
There is another point on which I should like the Minister to comment. In his statement he mentioned the organisation investing its cash, and I think he meant its surplus cash. I thought he was referring to the reinvestment of capital, but as he went on I was left with the impression that there was the possibility of a restriction being placed on surplus funds. With the Treasury's hand upon the organisation and saying that its pricing is too high and that it is making too much profit, the organisation will be lucky to have funds to invest.
But if organisations are to invest, what kind of investments will they make? Will it be in equity shares? Will they loan to the Government with a cheap rate of interest? Or will they be allowed to make the best of a monetary surplus? I think the Minister should be more forthcoming on this issue.
I hope that this Bill will eventually improve the efficiency of the six organisations named in it. If it does, it will receive the blessing of the Opposition. But I think that when the public accountability takes place we shall find that the Bill needs amending to ensure efficiency in these organisations. Unless we make certain that personnel are better trained in management, we cannot expect the


success which we ought to be having in any kind of nationalised industry. When Members of the Government talk of management personnel in the nationalised industries, I wish they would look more to private enterprise. It is there that 80 per cent. of the wealth of the nation is produced and it is there that management is lacking. When the Government criticise management in the nationalised industries I hope they also think about current failures in private enterprise.

11.26 a.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: I do not wish to enlarge the scope of the debate, but I have been moved by certain observations of the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) to intervene briefly. As in his consituency, so in mine, nationalised industry is a significant employer of labour. I and other Conservative hon. Members criticise the nationalised industries not in any hostile spirit, but because we are in a sense responsible for them; we are the shareholders of those industries. If we do not criticise them, who will? Who is to provide the jury by which their performance is to be tested?

Mr. Wainwright: We have the British Press.

Mr. Rees: I think that it is our primary responsibility, and the lesson we can draw from the performance of the nationalised industries, which we can apply in relation to this Bill, is that we have not evolved satisfactory methods of control and accounting. It is as much a political failure as an industrial failure. We have set up nationalised industries and, unfortunately, we have not learnt to control them.
I welcome the Bill because it is a modest innovation which will enable us to assess and control various industrial and commercial functions of government. It is not sufficient for us to say that we have a general responsibility to Government, and that we have our debates. The outstanding lesson is that politicians are not very successful when they attempt to run industrial enterprises; and certainly they are not very successful in judging their performance in any critical and impartial spirit. On that basis I welcome the Bill as a modest innovation.
In the future we shall be interested to see the capital structure evolve for the quasi-industrial and quasi-political attitudes. We shall want to see the gearing and what their distribution policy will be, how they will evaluate their assets, and what kind of pricing policy will evolve.
As I said, I welcome the Bill as a modest innovation on which I hope we shall be able to build in the future and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), if it turns out to be a success I hope we shall be able to extend the principles to other aspects of government.

11.29 a.m.

Mr. Jack Dunnett: I should like briefly to pursue with the Minister the matter of accountability to Parliament. I appreciate that these funds come within the purview of the Estimates Committee, although it is rather long-range control. Is there no Minister responsible to whom a Question may be put? The proposed funds are not likely to be the subject of Questions, but it could arise.
Is there to be no automatic annual opportunity to raise the operation of these funds in Parliament, once constituted?

Mr. Nott: With the permission of the Committee, I shall endeavour to answer some of the questions that have been put to me. But first I should like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and Dartford (Mr. Trew) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) for their warm welcome for this modest Bill. In the course of my remarks, naturally I shall endeavour to allay some of the fears expressed by the hon. Members for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) and Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant).
Although I describe it as a modest Bill, nevertheless it contains some important innovations. I believe, and can certainly give my assurance on this to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, that we should maintain and endeavour to enhance in every way the high reputation for service and quality of the organisations described in the Bill. There is nothing in the clauses that could adversely affect these organisations in the way that he feared.
To take an example to which he referred, the Royal Mint has a worldwide reputation, and it has just been awarded the Queen's Award for Industry for its export achievements in competition with mints throughout the world. When the Royal Mint becomes a trading fund there is nothing contained in that change which would in any way diminish its image—I think that was his term—and reputation for quality, and the service provided by this excellent and famous organisation.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that we must do all possible to improve the performance of the public sector. The trading funds will be within the responsibility of Ministers, enabling me to answer the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett) by saying that questions may be put to the Minister responsible for the trading fund concerned. The Royal Ordnance Factories are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence, and questions may be put on matters which come within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence, as they are now.
In every case the adoption of trading fund finance is part of a wider series of management changes in the organisation concerned. It is designed to give the management of the organisation more clearly defined tasks. We want to give the management greater freedom as to how those tasks may be performed, and hold the management more clearly accountable than they are now for the results. The trading fund financing that we introduce in the Bill is a means of facilitating other desirable changes in the public sector, rather than an end in itself. We share the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that the public sector should be made as efficient as possible in its operations and this modest measure is, as he appreciates, a move towards that end.
There is a great deal of work going on in the public sector at present with this in mind. When my hon. Friend implied that perhaps not enough was being done, I think he tended to minimise the great amount of work being done here.
My hon. Friend also said that he thought the Bill should go further. It might be of interest to the Committee if I set out the circumstances which might

make a particular activity of Government suitable for trading fund status. I might list a few examples where a particular activity of Government would tend to lead us to suggest that it should have a trading fund, which would be where the nature of the service is such that a substitution of trading fund finance for Vote finance, would be more conducive to efficient management; a situation where it is possible to cover the costs either through charges for supplying goods and services, or by charges for meeting particular policy requirements. In other words, we would see this particular trading fund as being able to cover all its costs through its trading activities.
More generally, we would see whether the basis on which the service is to be organised is such that it will be possible to separate clearly the responsibility of its management from those of its customers and whether there exist adequate accounts and other means of assessing the performance of the trading fund to form a reasonable basis on which it could be held accountable. That does not mean, however, that the Government are not looking at other means of dealing with activities in the public sector.
As my hon. Friend knows, in some cases the Government have suggested the complete hiving off of activities. An example of this is the proposed establishment of the Manpower Services Commission under the Employment and Training Bill. In other cases the need has been sufficiently met by establishing executive agencies within government and an example of that is the Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment. In each case we look at the activities of government and try to decide which organisation would be most conducive to the maintenance of its reputation and activities and to the maximum efficiency with which it might be run.
My hon. Friend also raised two questions, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford touched on this point about how we would regard public dividend capital. It is an important matter because it has recently been considered by the Select Committee for Nationalised Industries and generally speaking we would keep to the outline set out by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary when public dividend capital


was debated in the House on the 9th August 1972, when he referred to three criteria to be looked into in deciding whether public dividend capital might be suitable.
The Chief Secretary had in mind first, that the enterprise must be viable and must be required to meet specified financial targets. Secondly, there must be an expectation that dividends will be paid, although not necessarily every year, and that the earnings over a period will at least equal the interest that would have been paid on fixed interest capital. Thirdly, there must be genuine fluctuations in earnings from year to year because of the nature of the commercial business undertaking. In fact, the enforcement of the first rule that the enterprise must be viable and must be required to meet specified financial targets will go a long way to meet the criticism which the Select Committee made of the use of public dividend capital in the case of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Ridley: Some people apparently think that the initials PDC mean "payment deferred constantly".

Mr. Nott: I understand the criticisms which were made by the Select Committee in the case of the British Steel Corporation. But the Government seek in this enabling Bill to give the possibility of the introduction of public dividend capital in any particular trading fund, and with each one we shall study the circumstance with great care to see whether public dividend capital might be suitable. When an affirmative Resolution to set up a new trading fund came before the House it would have the opportunity to consider the matter in detail with regard to a particular organisation. The Government do not by any means say that every single trading fund should appropriately have public dividend capital; what they say is that there should be an opportunity for it in this enabling Bill.
My hon. Friend also discussed the motivation of management. This is a wide subject and I think it would be rash to range too widely over what it is that motivates managers. It is a subject on which there is much disagreement and there might quite easily be

disagreement between the two sides of the Committee.
Within the trading funds there will be a strong motivation to run each trading fund successfully and to some extent the promotion of those concerned with a particular trading fund will be very closely involved with the success which they make of their work. They are members of the Civil Service, and clearly if they make a success of running a trading fund, promotion will be open to them in the Civil Service. There are traditions of public service in the Civil Service which are of long standing, and I believe that this tradition of public service, coupled with promotion, will lead to sufficient motivation for the efficient running of these organisations.
The whole question of motivation of management within the public and private sectors is a very large one. We debated it recently on the Finance Bill. I remember it well, and no doubt we might have an opportunity of considering the matter again when the Finance Bill goes downstairs on Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My hon. Friends know to which clauses I am referring.
I come to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford. His first question was, who would set the financial targets? The target would be agreed between the Minister responsible for the trading fund—in the case of the Royal Ordnance Factories he would be the Secretary of State for Defence—and the Treasury. When the target has been agreed, the Treasury will lay a minute in the House specifying the target for that fund.
That leads me to another question asked by several hon. Members about how the financial targets will work. The process of fixing a financial target will naturally involve making assumptions about the level of prices or charges by the trading fund organisation. In a case where the organisation is a sole supplier to the Government—and most of the organisations are primarily concerned with providing services and goods to the public sector—there will be a direct relationship between the trading fund and Government Departments.
In this case, where we are talking about the fixing of financial targets and


prices within the public sector, the principle to be observed will be that the price charged to other Government Departments should reflect the opportunity cost of using the capital. Currently that would mean that the goods sold would be priced in such a way that the organisation would obtain a return of 10 per cent. on the current value of the assets employed.
In the case of those organisations which are in a market situation—the Royal Ordnance Factories, for example, are competing with outside suppliers—the determination of the financial target will plainly be more complex. In a sense it will be related to a pricing and marketing strategy. Clearly the pricing policy of the competitor will be relevant in that case. But in general it will have to be consistent with the proposition that the Government will not invest further capital in a trading fund, as in the public sector generally, unless they can obtain at least a 10 per cent. discounted cash flow rate of return in real terms on that investment. That will be the manner in which the pricing of those trading funds which are in competition with outside organisations will be handled, although the discounted cash flow rate of return varies depending on economic circumstances.
It is intended that the trading funds should earn an adequate return upon their capital assets, and one of the basic reasons for this changeover is that the vote system of finance places all the emphasis on cash flows, whereas a trading fund system will enable us to look at the return on the assets employed.
The second question asked by hon. Friend the Member for Dartford was to what extent would the organisations be able to diversify. The order setting up a trading fund will specify not only the service but the operations on which the Minister can spend money. In other words, it will define the operation with which the trading fund will be concerned. This statement of operation will show what activities may be financed by the trading fund. If we wish to extend the limits it will be necessary to make an amendment to the order which sets out the ambits within which the trading fund will operate.
The question I have answered, namely, about how we shall tend to fix prices where an organisation such as the Royal

Ordnance Factories are competing with the private sector.
The fourth and last question asked by my hon. Friend was about the auditing. The accounts will be in a form approved by the Treasury, but the Comptroller and Auditor General will be responsible for auditing the annual accounts of the organisation concerned.
I hope that what I have said allays the fears of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.
The hon. Member for Dearne Valley asked how we arrived at the figure of £250 million. The borrowing limit for each organisation will be laid down in the initial order setting up that particular trading fund and it will be expressed in terms of the amount by which its total outstanding indebtedness, arising from the initial loan and subsequent drawings, may exceed the amount of the originating debt created by the appropriation of existing assets to the trading fund.
It means that the individual limits applied by order, and the limit of £250 million on the aggregate of such limits—we are referring here to the aggregate of the organisations mentioned in the Bill—relate to the new money which the organisation can borrow from the National Loans Fund and it excludes the debts created by appropriating existing assets which have already been financed out of votes. The provision of £250 million has been drawn up taking account of the known investment plans of the organisations named in the Bill and after making some assumptions about the extent to which it would be possible to finance those investments planned from the receipts of the individual trading funds themselves.
Surplus cash will not be invested in equities. I can allay the hon. Gentleman's fears in that respect. It will be invested within the public sector in Government securities only.
The accounting officer will normally be the manager of the particular trading fund concerned. The accounting officer for the Royal Mint will probably be the present Deputy Master of the Royal Mint. That would be the normal procedure, although it will not be settled until the Royal Mint becomes a trading fund.
I hope that I have covered most of the points that have been raised. If I have not done so, I hope hon. Members will say so. I conclude by repeating that this is a modest Bill which derives from the recommendations of the Fulton Committee. There is nothing very controversial in it because consideration of the proposals now embodied in the Bill was started under the last Administration following publication of the Fulton Committee Report. We have done a great deal of work on the matter since

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Elliot, Captain Walter (Chairman)
Parkinson, Mr.


Armstrong, Mr.
Reed, Mr.


Cant, Mr.
Rees, Mr. Peter


Dunnett, Mr.
Ridley, Mr.


Green, Mr.
Trew, Mr.


Murton, Mr.
Wainwright, Mr. Edwin


Nott, Mr.

coming to office, but there is little difference between the two parties on this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Government Trading Funds Bill ought to be read a Second time.

Committee rose at ten minutes to Twelve o'clock.